:: Da' Militant One's Lair ::

Da' Militant One has arrived to ''tell it like it is'' and give his unique perspective on today's issues across the political, social, and economic landscapes. His specialty is stickin' it to ''the Man''. Email at Militantone@comcast.net

:: welcome to Da' Militant One's Lair :: bloghome | contact ::

[::..archive..::]

[::..recommended..::]
:: google [>]
:: plastic [>]
:: davenetics [>]

:: Monday, April 14, 2008 ::

Note to Obama. Stop apologizing to white folks who don't like you anyway and will never accept your apologies. From Farakhan to Wright to your comments about rednecks in Pennsylvania, you have placed yourself in a box where you will remain unless you develop the courage to tell folks to "take a hike." Also, never make any comments to one group that you can't say to all. You can also show some courage and go to the people of Pennsylvania and make the same statements there that you made in San Francisco. No one likes an elitist!

:: DM1 4/14/2008 12:18:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, October 19, 2007 ::

Why is Senator Schumer a member of the Board of Advisors for the organization, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies? The organization is a front group for Bill Kristol, Clifford May, Frank Gaffney, and the rest of the gang that lied us into Iraq. I am including in this email, an email that I sent to the group, as well as its organization structure and some of its views from the website:

My Email to the FDD:

I have viewed some of the information on your website and I am stunned by several articles that classify the "old left's" scorn for Joe Lieberman and George Bush as polarization politics and hatred. While many democrats may harbor these sentiments the dislike of the two gentlemen stems to a large degree from the frustration of watching Bush take the country down the tubes with little opposition with Lieberman serving as his eager supporter. The short-term (positive?) effects of the “surge” are illusory and comments to the contrary belie a misunderstanding of the dynamics at play. The Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds are ancient people who have long memories and see the current situation in Iraq as an opportunity to gain power, land, and wealth. Their “blood feud” will not be solved by the U.S. , Bush, or the Congress. The surge is working because the Sunnis understand that the only way they will be able match strength with the Shiites and the Kurds is to, at least, for the moment form an alliance with the U.S. military. The Kurds are poised to form a sovereign nation, and the Shiite have no incentive to negotiate in good faith with either the Sunnis or the Kurds since they hold the seat of power. The Shiites are willing to cede northern Iraq to the Kurds because they have no choice. The Kurds are ready to defend any attempts by any party to confiscate the lands, or limit the sovernty that they have enjoyed since the decision by Saddam Hussein to cut his losses and accept the realization that the Kurds could not be conquered without overwhelming military force.

Also, the Kurds have millions of recruits in southern Turkey, which by the way is ready to strike at those Kurds in the south. Any attempt by the Shiites to force the Kurds to acquiesce will most certainly result in significant bloodshed and death. If the Kurds do not comply with the Shiites what will the U.S. do? What is the strategy for diffusing the tension between Turkey and its belligerent citizenry, the Kurds? Turkey has been a valued ally, but is angered by the positive relationship between the Kurds and the U.S. The U.S. is not in a position to make any demands to Turkey that turkey is obligated to accept. Any U.S. military confrontation with Turkey or the Kurds is foolhardy. Most Americans fail to realize that the history of the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and Turks runs thousands of years consisting of overwhelming bloodshed subjugation, domination, self interest, and self preservation. A review of Arab culture would reveal that barter and deal making are hallmarks of their history and neither the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Kurds, nor the Turks will ever accept any arrangement or agreement that leaves them on the short end. Many other variables are in play that some in your organization do not seem to acknowledge. Iraqi Shiites have a big brother in Iran. Iran is covertly supporting the insurgents against the U.S. military for fundamental reasons centering on its ability to protect itself against any military aggression by the U.S., Israel, or any other country.

Iran’s current strategy with respect to Iraq is to ensure that the U.S. military is degraded as much as possible to prohibit its ability to wage war against it, effectively. Also, Iran’s Iraq strategy is predicated on the country’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons with limited opposition by the U.S. Israel’s capacity to militarily respond to Iran’s nuclear objectives is also questionable given these results of its conflict with Hezbollah last year. Any attack by Israel on Iran could be seen as an opportunity by Hezbollah to launch missile attacks on Israel as the group has replenished its stockpile of weapons. What about Hamas? Can Israel fight a two-front war? What about Iran’s response to any provocation by Israel? If Iran responds militarily to Israel how will the U.S. respond? What will be the role of the carrier task forces already in the Persian Gulf? While the weaponry possessed by the carrier groups is more than sufficient to decimate Iran as a country is this strategy operable? How will further conflict in the region affect the “war on Terrorism?” How will further conflict in the region affect the democratic government of Lebanon?

Already, southern Lebanon has been ceded to Hezbollah and its survivability is predicated on the relationship with Hezbollah. Lebanon has no desire to wage any type of military campaign against Hezbollah given that each conflict results if destruction of its infrastructure and the death of its citizens. What was the U.S. response to Israel’s bombing of Lebanon in 2006 given that pacified areas of the country with nominal military value were destroyed: lukewarm rebukes and empty rhetoric. How does the U.S. response to the bombing of a democratic Lebanon by Israel aid the Bush Administration’s strategy of promoting democracy in the region? What incentives did the U.S. give to aspiring Arab democracies? The same can be said for the U.S. response to the travails of the current Iraqi government given its already tenuous position. Iraq President El-Maliki can not achieve any political objectives unless deals are made with the various Shiite groups. The political pressure being applied by the U.S. forces Maliki to establish closer ties with both Iran and Syria to strengthen the legitimacy of theShiite-dominated Iraqi government to its Arab neighbors. The failure of the Bush Administration to anticipate and plan for such a scenario borders on dereliction of duty.

Speaking of Syria, how will it respond to a widening of a regional conflict? Additionally as a staunch supporter of Hezbollah the likelihood of Syria providing military and financial support as well as a huge reserve of manpower is unquestionable. Any deals with the Kurds will not call for any ceding of land or oil fields. The Sunnis are the odd man out because they have nothing to barter, or negotiate. Not only are the Iraqi Sunnis angered, but so too is the Sunni-dominated nation of Saudi Arabia, who by the way has been supporting the Sunni Insurgency, both financially and with ready and willing recruits. Why has the U.S. allowed this treachery to go unpunished? Why is the U.S. planning to sale tens of billions of dollars in military arms and aircraft to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states while also selling even more weaponry and aircraft to Israel? How does arming mutual enemies to-the-teeth advance the Bush Agenda? Why does the U.S. continue to support a Saudi Arabian despotic regime that supports our enemy in Iraq? What about Saudi oil policy which creates a huge transfer of wealth from the U.S. to the Arab state which then uses the money to purchase U.S. military armaments and weaponry and finance groups hostile to U.S. interests.

Foundation for the Defense of Democracies http://www.defenddemocracy.org/

Organizational Structure:

Board of Directors

Steve Forbes, Board Member, CEO Forbes Magazine

Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Founding Member, 2001-2006, Fmr. Ambassador to the UN

Jack Kemp, Chairman Emeritus, Fmr. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Distinguished Advisors

Judge Louis J. Freeh, Fmr. Director of the FBI

Sen. Joseph Lieberman(D-CT), U.S. Senate

Newt Gingrich, Fmr. Speaker of the House

R. James Woolsey, Fmr. Director of the CIA

Board of Advisors

Gary Bauer, President, American Values

Bill Kristol, Editor, Weekly Standard

Donna Brazile, Campaign Manager, Democratic strategist, Gore 2000

Hon. Richard D. Lamm, Fmr. Governor, Colorado

Rep. Eric Cantor, Chairman (R-VA), Task Force on Terrorism

Rep. Jim Marshall, (D-GA), U.S. House of Representatives

Rep. Eliot Engel, (D-NY), U.S. House of Representatives

Sen. Zell Miller, (D-GA), Former U.S. Senator

Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

Richard Perle, Former Chair of the Defense Policy Board and FDD Advisor

Amb. Marc Ginsberg, Fmr. Ambassador, Morocco

Steven Pomerantz, Former Assistant Director, FBI

Charles Jacobs, President, American Anti-Slavery Group

Oliver "Buck" Revell, Former Associate Deputy Director, FBI

Charles Krauthammer, Syndicated Columnist

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, (D-NY), U.S. Senate

Senior Fellows

Khairi Abaza
Middle East and Democracy Expert

Andrew C. McCarthy
Director, FDD's Center for Law and Counterterrorism

Avi Jorisch
Terrorism Expert

Barbara Newman
Investigative Reporter and Author

Samer Libdeh
Middle East and Democracy Expert

Dr. Walid Phares
Director, FDD's Future of Terrorism Project

Mario Loyola
Visiting Fellow: Diplomacy and Defense

Victoria Toensing
Fmr. Chief Counsel to Sen. Intelligence CommitteeBoard of Directors

Adjunct Fellows

Dr. Jonathan Adelman, Professor, University of Denver

Michael I. Krauss, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law

Richard Z. Chesnoff, Journalist

Agota Kuperman, U.S. Foreign Service (ret.)

Paul Crespo, Former Marine Corps Officer and Military Attaché

Joel Mowbray, Journalist

Tanya Gilly, Member of the Iraqi National Assembly

Dr. J. Peter Pham, Director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs, James Madison University

Ethan Gutmann, Adjunct Fellow, The Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Dr. Frederic Smoler, Professor, Sarah Lawrence College

Orde Kittrie, Law Professor, Arizona State University

Staff

Tony Badran, Research Fellow, Levant, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Jessica Risch, Research Associate, The Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Amb. Richard W. Carlson, Vice Chairman, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Cara Rosenthal, Senior Manager, Development, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Kyle Dabruzzi, Summer Fellow, The Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Claudia Rosett, Journalist-in-Residence, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Mark Dubowitz, Chief Operating Officer, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Stephanie Schwartz, Communications and Special Projects Coordinator, The Center for Liberty in the Middle East

Sasha Eckstein, Special Assistant, The Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Jonathan L. Snow, Research Fellow, Coalition Against Terrorist Media

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Vice President of Research, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Jean Thurman, Manager, Operations, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Joshua Goodman, Director of Research, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Caitlyn Walters, Coordinator, Campus Programs, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Eleana Gordon, Senior Vice-President, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Dan Wilson, Communications Coordinator, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Clifford D. May, President, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Brian Wise, Director of Media Relations, The Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Bill McCarthy, Vice-President, Communications, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Adela A. Zachariades, Coordinator, Future of Terrorism Project, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Media and Publications

The Danger Zone
(10/14/2007)
Sunday's WMAL show featured Richard Landes, a professor of Medieval History at Boston University; and syndicated columnist Arnaud de Borchgrave.

Clifford May Discusses Counterinsurgency Strategy on WAMU 88.5 FM
(10/10/2007)
On Wednesday, October 10, FDD President Clifford May recorded a three-minute audio commentary on WAMU 88.5 FM, describing how the war in Iraq has prompted the U.S. military to reconsider many of the tactics and plans that strategists thought would be the blueprint for all modern day conflicts.

FDD Submits Amicus Brief in Enemy Combatants Case
(10/11/2007)
FDD's Center for Law & Counterterrorism (CLC), together with the Committee on the Present Danger and the Center for Security Policy, has filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in Boumediene v. Bush, an important case the Supreme Court will consider this term.

Claudia Rosett Testifies on Corruption in Iraq
(10/04/2007)
FDD Journalist-in-Residence Claudia Rosett testified on Thursday, October 4, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, on the status of corruption in the Iraqi government and whether U.S. government efforts to address this continuing problem have been adequate.

Peter Pham Testifies On Human Rights In Horn of Africa
(10/02/2007)
FDD Adjunct Fellow Dr. Peter Pham testified on Tuesday, October 2, 2007, at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He discussed democracy and human rights in Ethiopia.

Gartenstein-Ross Briefs Congressional Staff on US-EU Counterterrorism Cooperation
(09/21/2007)
On Friday, September 21, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, FDD's vice president of research, briefed congressional staff on the use of terror lists to combat individuals and organizations involved in planning and conducting acts of terror.

Palestinian Authority to Shut Down Hamas' al-Aqsa TV
(09/21/2007)
Reports from the West Bank that the Palestinian Authority has chosen to shut down Hamas' al-Aqsa TV operations were met with praise from a group of Muslims, Christians and Jews who are part of the Coalition Against Terrorist Media (CATM).

Clifford May Discusses Iranian Threat at AEI Event
(09/10/2007)
FDD President Clifford May discussed U.S. strategy toward Iran at a book forum organized by the American Enterprise Institute on Monday, September 10, 2007.

Internet Battle Rages over the Petraeus Report, Future of the US Mission in Iraq
(09/10/2007)
The debate over whether the Iraq mission led by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker deserves continued support is raging not only in Washington but also in the blogosphere. Now, a grassroots petition supporting General Petraeus and his troops is making its way around the Internet.

Gartenstein-Ross Featured on CNN's "God's Warriors"
(08/22/2007)
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, FDD's vice president of research, was featured in the second installment of CNN's three-part series on politics and faith, “God's Warriors,” hosted by Christiane Amanpour.

FDD Welcomes Freedom's Watch to the Iraq Discourse, Announces New Resources
(08/23/2007)
As the debate over our nation's future course in Iraq continues, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) today welcomed Freedom's Watch, a new non-partisan organization dedicated to winning the war in Iraq, to the national discourse.

:: DM1 10/19/2007 07:29:00 PM [+] ::
...

Email I Sent to the Editor of The Observer, A British Online News Website and His Response

A U.S. Citizen wants to apologize to his cousins in Britain

Dear Sirs,

I am contacting your organization to apologize on behalf of the United States for our outrageous and unacceptable behavior during the last six years. I have become a regular reader of your website as I find your reporting to be informative, trustworthy, and factual which are in mind my the three pillars of professional journalism. Unfortunately, these pillars no longer exist in my country. I and many other concerned Americans have been trying to fight the good fight, but our adversaries control much of the power structure of the country. Over the past several months, I have developed a higher degree of urgency in confronting my government over its abominable and corrupt behavior which has eroded the country's principles and international integrity. With the aid of your website and other international sites, I have become aware of the disgraceful actions that my government has sanctioned in the name of the “American People,” and I am embarrassed and ashamed of myself and of my fellow Americans as we have failed to uphold our responsibility to our Constitution and most importantly to our fellow citizens of the world. As a proud, but humbled American, I ask that you and the global community to continue to shine the light on truth and keep the faith, as my fellow Americans and I continue the struggle to reclaim our "shining democracy on the hill." Peace.
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
Subject: Thank you for your email: A U.S. Citizen wants to apologize to his cousins in Britain
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:09:59 +0000

The editor wishes to acknowledge your email with thanks.

Unless you have indicated to the contrary, it will be considered for
publication and may be edited. Whether or not we have space to publish your
letter, it will be read with interest and copied for noting to the relevant
journalist or section editor.

Please do not reply to this email, as the account from which it is sent
cannot accept incoming email. Instead use letters@observer.co.uk

It was good of you to take the trouble to write.

Yours sincerely

The Letters Editor

The Observer
3-7 Herbal Hill
London EC1R 5EJ

:: DM1 10/19/2007 08:57:00 AM [+] ::
...

Letter To The White House

I am contacting the White House to express my disappointment and frustration by the lack of principle, integrity, and character displayed by the Executive Branch during the past six years. Many of the policies enacted by the Bush Administration have been ill-conceived, short-sighted, and poorly executed. The constant misstatements and in some instances outright lies have damaged our Constitution as well as our country's standing in the world. Mr. Bush and his operatives need to understand that they are only caretakers of the country's government and that they have a responsibility and obligation to the American People to perform their duties in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution and international law. Mr. Bush's constant talk of terror and fear has been very damaging to the psyche of many Americans and we as a people appear to have lost our courage and our mora l standing in the world. My family has produced four generations of military service in each branch of service. My grandfather served in Navy during World War II, my father served in the Air Force and did two tours of duty in Vietnam, I served in the Army during the 1980s, and my nephew serves as a marine, who is weeks away from a tour of duty in Iraq. My family's service to our country is not unique as many other American families have also responded to the "call." The purpose of our service was to protect our fellow citizens and to defend and uphold the principles of our Constitution.

Many of the Bush Administration's policies and actions have eroded the very purpose of my family's service to the country and the patriotism that we have tried to uphold for more than fifty years. My comments have been long in coming as I have been very wary of contacting the White House as I was concerned about being placed on someone's list for being un-American. However, I have the obligation and responsibility to continue my defense of my fellow Americans and the Constitution, so I am prepared for the consequences, if any, of my comments in this email. I remain dismayed by the constant drumbeat of war and the bellicose statements by many who never wore the uniform, but appear to have no shame in asking their fellow Americans to die for very questionable reasons and assertions. I voted for Papa Bush in 1988 and am still an admirer of his as I believe that he embodies the leaders hip, determination, and pragmatism that an effective President must possess. Sadly, it appears that the current President possesses none of the qualities. The events of 9/11 do not define America and should not serve as a facade for impudent decisions and behavior. As a proud American, I refuse to live in fear, or stand idle while my fellow citizens live in constant terror and the country's legacy is disgraced. I urge Mr. Bush and others to reestablish their commitment to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the American People. As for the Iraq War, I hope that Mr. Bush understands that only a true leader can lead warriors into battle and that his stubbornness and arrogance only serve to limit his effectiveness as President and Commander-in-Chief. Peace.

:: DM1 10/19/2007 08:50:00 AM [+] ::
...

Letter To Obama

While I applaud Obama's effort, he is being ill-served by whoever is advising him on Middle East policy. The biggest failure of U.S. Middle East policy is our inability to fully comprehend, or acknowledge the roots of terrorism directed against America and Israel. Obama's position that Iran can not be allowed to develop nuclaer weapons, while popular on the campaogn trail, is fundamentally flawed. While I have much to say, I will leave you with a portion of an email I wrote to the Glenn Beck program to give you an idea of what I am talking about:

By the way, the next time that you profess the danger and fear that you feel from the Iranian President, take a moment to examine the emotions and anger that he and his people must hold with regard to U.S. support of the Shah and his secret police, our support of Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war, and the U.S. government’s tacit acceptance of Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces. The Iranian President stated that as a result of the war over 200,000 Iranians were killed and more than 600,000 were wounded. Where is our government’s accountability? Why shouldn’t the Iranians seek revenge? Why is Iranian support of Iraq insurgents any more unacceptable than the U.S. and Britain’s covert support of Jundallah, a Sunni insurgent group with ties o Al Qaeda that has been launching terrorist attacks inside Iran for several years? The last statement may surprise you, so go do your homework and check out the validity of the allegation. Why should any Arab/Muslim nation trust us? What about impact to Arab nations of the Redline Agreement, or the Balfour Declaration? How about the numerous agreements and promises made to these nations by the U.S., Britain, and other nations that were not honored? What about the violence, terrorism, and lies perpetrated by Jewish extremists against Palestinians in creating the State of Israel? In 1945, during a meeting with Franklin Roosevelt, the Saudi King, Abd al-Aziz, questioned the President as to why the Arab Nations of the Middle East should bear the responsibility of a Jewish State instead of Europe? While folks like you have the luxury of ignorance, for people like me willful ignorance may be hazardous to our health. Lastly, stop the fear mongering, as you folks continue to frighten a large segment of the American Public with predictions of doom. How are your actions American? Where is the courage and conviction that embodies the American Spirit? If black folks had succumbed to fear that you espouse, the Civil Rights Movement would have never achieved success. Peace

Until Obama develops a more expansive view of the Middle East, his candidacy is tenuous at best.

:: DM1 10/19/2007 08:46:00 AM [+] ::
...

If Only Negroes Knew Their Place

I don't know how many of you viewed a video taoe that showed a white Florida cop abusing a black 15-year old teenage girl, but what follows is the text of an email that I sent to Fox News:

Comment on the video of young black girl's beat down by cop

So it's all the fault of the 15 year-old black girl that she caught a beat down from the white cop for "resisting" an arrest stemming from a curfew violation. Could it be that she was fearful of being handcuffed by the white cop at night out of concern for her safety? Did the cop consider calling for backup from a female cop to calm the situation? Is it possible that she shares the same fear of white cops that you have for Muslims? Is her fear any less rational than yours? Since many white folks like you share the belief that she was responsible for the cop's brutality are black parents to assume that their children will be subjected to the same type of brutality if they behave irrationally, possibly out of fear, when dealing with white cops alone and at night? Why is it that these types of incidents appear to involve white cops and black citizens 99% of the t time? If the video showed a black cop abusing a young white female teenager would you still have that same opinion? Why are there no videos of black cops brutalizing white folks? If the young girl was your daughter or the daughter of a friend would that changes your perspective? Was punching the young girl in the face necessary? From the audio of the video, the young lady appears to be pleading to the cop during her beat down. Could her pleas have been related to the cop's use of force in forcing her arm behind her back? From the video images, the young lady's arm appears to be forced in a position that could have resulted in her arm being broken. It's obvious that white folks like you are relieved that a tape of the entire incident exists so that you can feel comfortable holding your racist views. Is it possible that these types of incidents, the response by white folks, and the fear that they profess of terrorist attacks, are what embolden the terrorists?

I pose the question because my view of people like you are that you are incapable of being honest or fair-minded and that you lack a rational moral compass which allows you to dismiss the evil that you do, but whine and moan if someone smacks you back. Is this the type of America that the thousands of black troops in Iraq are protecting? Do you believe that these soldiers would share your view or would they be angered by the images and the justifications mad by white folks like you? You and other white folks that think like you have a skewed concept of others’ humanity. I grew up in D.C. surrounded by more violence than a little kid ought to experience, however, short of trying to take my life, I could never brutalized a young white girl in the manner shown in the video because I would be mindful that her actions might be borne of fear, and not anger. My response to a young white girl acting out in such a manner would compel me to call for a female cop to come to the scene a try and calm the young lady. While I’m sure that many white folks like you do not comprehend such a response, I’ve experienced enough violence in my lifetime growing up in DC that I realize the corrosive long-term psychological effects of violent actions on young people. Given the long adversarial relationship between white cops and the black community, incidents like the one in Florida only reinforce the belief that we as a people have more to fear from racist white cops and people like you than we do from Osama.

:: DM1 10/19/2007 08:34:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, October 05, 2007 ::

It's All Been Said Before

Tuesday, July 16, 2002

Letter to Bruce Wilson UK Dear Bruce,

The reason why you have been receiving so much negative email is that the truth hurts. Americans are notorious enablers when it comes to their presidents! To american conservatives George W. Bush is not William Jefferson Clinton. It is as simple as that. The american press and the democrats have for the most part rolled over for George W. Bush. You have the courage to say what a lot of americans are thinking, but are unable (afraid?) to express publicly. You are quite correct about the effect of September 11th on Bush's presidency. Examples: terrorist alerts that include every mode of transportation and delivery system known to man, a threat assessment chart that has remained at "Yellow?" despite warnings almost daily of imminent terrorist attacks, John Ashcroft (enough said!), The Patriot Act, Dissenting opinions ridiculed as unpatriotic, an ability to stand before the American People and have no clue as to how to articulate a vision that is a true path to peace, incompetence rewarded as virtue. It goes on! There is a method to the madness: 2004. The conservatives want to remake the judiciary among other goals. This is one of the primary reasons for their backing of George W. Bush. Believe me, in private they will admit that he is not the brightest bulb, but he was electable. They will defend Bush to the very end and the current beginnings of a police state in America is their way of controlling events. Beware of your head my friend! Keep telling the truth because we sure need someone to stand up and shout" "The Emperor has no clothes!" Good Day.

Da' Militant One

:: DM1 10/05/2007 02:32:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Thursday, October 04, 2007 ::

Da' Militant One has returned once again!

Life is hectic and time is moving so I'll get right to it. The following rant is directed towards weak asses like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly:

It would be one thing if fake patriots like Hannity and O’Reilly were real men, but it’s more than ridiculous that these fake tough guys now act as if they actually have heart. Neither was man enough to wear the uniform and now after all these years, they’ve both turned into tough guys. Hannity has spent so much time faking his support for the troops, bashing liberals, whining about Hillary, and talking about Bill Clinton’s genitals that he is nothing more than a joke. Tell the fake tough guy that his act has worn thin. Fox is lucky that there is an abundance of ignorant self-righteous white folks living in America because they, like him, would rather have Americans die in Iraq indefinitely than to admit that they have been completely inept and incompetent in comprehending, or understanding the facts as they stand on the ground in Iraq. But, that’s okay because they are white and conservative so they must be right. I know Hannity met with Bush and got his marching orders to talk up a war with Iran while his ass will still be in the States holding phony freedom concerts and bragging about his “patriotism” and “faith.” Let’s talk about his “patriotism” for a moment. I was listening to Hannity’s show a few years ago and a caller called him out for never wearing the uniform. His response? He actually said that he was not called to serve, as if there was a draft back in the day and he didn’t get drafted. The caller pointed out that all the fake patriot had to do was go to the nearest recruiting station and raise his right hand. Instead he wussed out and now he’s Edward R. Murrow! Based on his daily rants about Hillary and Bill, I can only surmise that he secretly is attracted to Hillary and as for Bill, I don’t know too many men that would obsess over another man’s genitals for so many years. Hannity’s “faith?” All of the true Christians that I have known in my lifetime didn’t have to profess their faith over and over as if bragging. They also had a kind spirit and were gentle souls. I never heard any of them tear down people on a daily basis. One more thing, Hannity’s worship of Bush is no different than Monica’s worship of Bill Clinton, she just performed her worship on her knees. Maybe Hannity’s into “salad tossing?”

And then there’s O’Reilly, the fake “John Wayne.” Mr. Tough Guy also failed to put on a uniform and now he’s threatening folks and trying to call folks out. Are folks supposed to be scared? Like most white folks that support the war, he talks a good game from the sidelines. By the way where are all those young republicans that support the war?” Since white conservatives are the true Americans, why haven’t those eligible for military service, enlist? Why hasn’t Fox asked young white conservatives to serve their country. Where are the children of Fox employees? How many are in Iraq? Not many I suspect because they like Hannity and O’Reilly are too busy being fake patriots, phony Christians, and cowards here in the states. See back in the day, me and three of my childhood friends, all young black men from the streets of D.C., joined the military during Reagan’s Presidency which means that while Hannity, O’reilly, Kristol, Hume, Wallace, and the rest of you were hunkering down in your basements playing “Army” my friends and I were the true patriots who gladly put their lives at risk to keep America free and safe. And that’s the disgrace of it all, those with the most mouth and pseudo-courage have spent years pretending to be men and patriots, but they are neither, they are just a bunch of weak-ass white boys grifting off of the liberty that my friends and I spent years protecting in uniform!
Labels: bvbcjs

:: DM1 10/04/2007 04:31:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, May 11, 2007 ::

I Told You So!

Most of what is happening now in Iraq was predicted years ago. I for one was a skeptic from the start because I've never trusted Bush or Cheney. In July 2002, I posted ten questions to the chickenhawks that pushed this war which have yet to be answered. Keep in mind that the questions were posed approximately seven months before Bush began his war against Saddam. Here's a blog I posted almost five years ago:

Wednesday, October 16, 2002 ::

Ten Questions for the Chickenhawks: If Saddam is such an immediate threat answer the following questions:

1. Why did Bush take a 30-day vacation in August?
2. Why is not the threat assessment at RED, the highest alert?
3. Why now a month before the mid-term elections and not earlier in the year?
4. How many casualities are acceptable?
5. What are the costs?
6. What is the time frame?
7. How long the occupation?
8. What if Iraq attacks Israel and Israel strikes back with nuclear weapons?
9. What happens if Syria helps Iraq?
10. What happens if the democrats take Congress?

:: DM1 10/16/2002 07:35:00 PM [+] :: ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, as you can see most of what is happening in Iraq now is not a surprise to many of us.

:: DM1 5/11/2007 09:00:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Monday, July 24, 2006 ::

The Other Side to the "Sins of the Father" Post Below (You decide who is telling the truth)

Israel and South Africa Does Israel support the apartheid regime?

You have heard about the relationship between Israel and South Africa, and you may have reached the conclusion that Israel is the main support of the South African regime, its principal weapons supplier, most important trading partner, purveyor of atomic technology, and much more. And that apartheid — the odious suppression of Blacks — might cease if Israel were only to withdraw its support from South Africa.

What are the facts?

Israel is a multi-racial society. Its citizens, most of them "immigrants," or children and grandchildren of immigrants, come from all corners of the globe. More than 55% are what we would call "non-Caucasians." In the last few years, the government has expended much effort and money to in-gather the Black Jews of Ethiopia. The concept of apartheid, of race discrimination, is repugnant to Israelis and to the Jewish religion. Condemnation of apartheid has been publicly expressed by every Israeli Prime Minister, beginning with David Ben Gurion.
Israel is not a significant factor in the arms trade with South Africa. The main suppliers of weaponry to that country are France, Britain, Canada, West Germany, Italy, India, and the United States. But South Africa has its own arms industry. It entered into a $1 billion barter deal with Iran, by which it would supply weapons -- mostly light and heavy artillery and shells -- in exchange for oil, ironically, but not surprisingly, a similar barter contract for $750 million -- was signed with Iraq.Oil is the life-blood of South Africa's economy. All of it is imported, and not a drop comes from Israel, of course. Virtually every barrel of the approximately $2 billion of yearly oil import comes from the Arabs -- most of it from Saudi Arabia.

How about trade in general? The principal trading partners of South Africa in 1986 were in that order: U.S.A., $3.4 billion (exports and imports); Japan, $2.9 billion; Germany, $2.8 billion; U.K., $2.6 billion -- with Israel far in the rear with a total trade of $0.2 billion, less than 1% of South Africa's total trade. And what does not take into account South Africa's vast (unrecorded) trade with the Black African countries, its collusive trading relationships in diamonds and precious metals with the Soviet Union, and its huge barter trade for oil with the Arab countries and Iran.
The Arab countries (with the exception of Egypt) consider themselves to be in a state of war with Israel. They do not trade with Israel at all. Other major countries such as Japan, India, China, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia do not trade with Israel either or only to a negligible extent. Israel, in order to survive, cannot be too choosy with whom to trade. But, in any case, political approval would not seem to be a requirement for trade. After all, the United States and other Western democracies deal with South Africa, with the Soviet Union, and with other countries of whose politics they disapprove.

Israel has been repeatedly singled out and condemned for alleged nuclear collaboration with South Africa. It is a charge that has no foundation and that Israel has denied categorically and constantly. The U.N. has recently published a document -- "South Africa's Nuclear Weapons Capability." It mentions certain countries in connection with nuclear collaboration with South Africa. Israel is not among them.

The facts are clear: Israel is a very minor player in trade and military relations with South Africa, has no nuclear cooperation, and has at all times condemned and denounced apartheid. In formulating policy towards South Africa, Israel, just as in its dealings with the Soviet Union, must take into account the vulnerable position of that country's large Jewish community. The perception that Israel has a particularly close relationship with South Africa is fostered by the Arabs, is based on distortion, and stems from hostility to Israel. A Congressional Committee and the Black Caucus of Congress has commended Israel for its government's resolution of March 18, 1987, regarding its relations with South Africa. Critics of Israel would also do well to judge its position on racism by its prodigious 20-year record of unprecedented development aid programs in 31 Black African countries.

This ad has been published and paid for by Facts and Logic About the Middle East

FLAME
P.O. Box 590359
San Francisco, CA 94159

Gerardo Joffe, President

:: DM1 7/24/2006 11:04:00 PM [+] ::
...

The Sins of the Fathers

Reposted From The World Traveler

Israel and South Africa

excerpted from the book "Israeli Foreign Policy"
by Jane Hunter South End Press, 1987

History

lsrael's ties with South Africa seem to be especially disturbing to many who follow Israel's international activities. Perhaps it is natural that Israel has been castigated more harshly for its arms sales to South Africa than for its sales to other countries: first, because there has been for a decade an arms embargo against South Africa; and second, because of the unsurpassed criminality of the white regime and the uses to which it puts the Israeli-supplied weapons.

It has also been said that those arms sales are understandable, given the striking similarities between the two countries in their day-to-day abuse and repression of their subject populations, South African blacks and Palestinians under Israeli rule; in their operating philosophies of apartheid and Zionism; and in their similar objective situations: "the only two Western nations to have established themselves in a predominantly nonwhite part of the world," as a South African Broadcasting Corporation editorial put it. That understanding, however, is somewhat superficial, and the focus on similarities of political behavior has somewhat obscured the view of the breadth and depth of the totality of Israeli-South African relations and their implications.

Israel's relations with South Africa are different than its interactions with any of its other arms clients. That Israel gave South Africa its nuclear weapons capability underscores the special nature of Tel Aviv's relations with the white minority government and begins to describe it - a full-fledged, if covert, partnership based on the determination of both countries to continue as unrepentant pariahs and to help each other avoid the consequences of their behavior.

Arms industry - Nuclear Apprentice

There are few areas where the respective needs and advantages of Israel and South Africa dovetailed so perfectly as in the field of nuclear cooperation. "The most powerful reason for Israeli willingness to bear the undesirable consequences of expanded and more open trade with South Africa may be her desire to acquire material necessary to manufacture nuclear weapons," wrote a military analyst in 1980.' To that must be added Israel's great desire to test the nuclear weapons it already had, and the attractions of South Africa's vast territory and proximity to even vaster uninhabited spaces-the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.
Then at the point in its nuclear development where it was fashioning sophisticated bombs (devices which use less nuclear material but have infinitely greater explosive force than the "primitive" bomb dropped by the U.S. on Hiroshima), Israel would find it particularly helpful to observe the performance, explosive force and fallout of a detonated weapon.

Since 1984, Israel had been operating a plutonium extraction plant in a secret underground bunker at Dimona in the Negev Desert. Built by the French in the late 1950s, the Dimona plant also included facilities for manufacturing atomic bomb components. At the time of the 1976 accords, Israel was preparing to build an adjoining plant for the extraction of lithium 6, tritium and deuterium, materials required for sophisticated thermonuclear weapons.
Israel's reasons for devoting what had to have been a significant portion of its scant resources to such an ambitious nuclear weapons program - nuclear experts have recently ranked it as the world's sixth nuclear power, after the U.S., the USSR, Britain, France and China - have been variously offered as the desire to develop a credible deterrent to attack by its neighbors and the desire to substitute that deterrent for at least part of the costly conventional arsenal that Israel, with one of the world's most powerful military forces, maintains, and also (with much less frequency) as an "umbrella" over a partial withdrawal from the occupied territories.

The South Africans began teaching the lessons of Israel's 1967 war at their maneuver school, and Israeli advisers began teaching the Boers the arts of suppressing a captive population and keeping hostile neighbors off balance... The white government's practice of domestic counterinsurgency combines outright military brutality with the extensive use of informers and collaborators. It is impossible to know how many refinements of these age-old techniques have been borrowed from the Israelis' occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. The Israeli system of village leagues is obviously comparable to the hated town councils imposed on segregated townships by the apartheid government. The collective punishment employed by the Israelis, such as the destruction of a whole family's home when one of its members is arrested as a suspect in an act of resistance, has lately been matched by the recent South African practices of sealing off townships, and assaulting entire funeral processions. What is perhaps more salient is the South African victims' perceptions of Israel's involvement in their oppression and how readily that perception is communicated...

The Frontline States

The South Africans noted that their May, 1983 aerial attack (dubbed Operation Shrapnel) on Mozambique's capital, Maputo, was analogous to Israel's attack on Beirut the previous summer. one analyst, Joseph Hanlon, believes that one of South Africa's objectives in the attack was to see how its version of events would play in the media. It was received very well indeed, according to Hanlon, with the Western press accepting South Africa's claim that its attack was in "retaliation" for an ANC attack and that ANC "bases" were hit.
Instead, the South African Air Force hit a child-care center and private houses with "special fragmentation rockets," leaving 6 dead and 40 wounded. This follows the Israeli practice in Lebanon of speaking about PLO installations while civilians are the actual targets, and attacking with particularly heinous anti-personnel weapons-cluster bombs and phosphorous bombs.

The victims of South Africa's angst are not blind to the similarity of attacks-or motives.
President Samora Machel likened the Israeli Government to the Pretoria regime. He said that because of its inability to contain the fury of the Palestinian people led by the PLO, the Zionist regime is trying to transfer the war to other regions. So reported Mozambican radio shortly after Israeli aircraft bombed PI headquarters in Tunisia in October 1985.

The model provided by Israel, which punishes every internal act of resistance and violent act outside its jurisdiction with a bombing raid on Palestinian targets in Lebanon-almost always refugee camps cynically identified by the Israelis as "terrorist bases" or "headquarters"-has served South Africa well. In January 1986, the white government's radio delivered a commentary on "the malignant presence" of "terrorism" in neighboring states and said "there's only one answer now, and that's the Israeli answer." Israel had managed to survive "by striking at terrorists wherever they exist."

In May 1986, South Africa demonstrated that it had assumed the right to attack its neighbors at a time and on a pretext of its own choosing. The chosen time was during a visit by the Eminent Persons Group of the Commonwealth of Nations, which was attempting to establish negotiations between the apartheid regime and its opposition. The victims-Zambia, Botswana and Zimbabwe, all Commonwealth members-were chosen for their alleged harboring of "terrorists"; the real victims were South African exiles and an employee of the government of Botswana. The South Africans said they had attacked "international terrorism" and compared their raids to the Israeli attack on Tunisia and the U.S. attack on Libya in April 1986.

The attack was similar in style to Israel's 1985 attack on Tunisia. Initially, the Israelis had been threatening Jordan and perhaps because King Hussein of Jordan was at the time on an official visit to the U.S., the Israelis chose to take revenge for the killing of three Israelis (believed to be top Mossad agents) in Larnaca, Cyprus on the PLO in Tunisia.
Two weeks after its three-pronged attack on its Commonwealth neighbors, South Africa attacked the Angolan harbor of Namibia, firing their version of the Israeli Gabriel missile.
Israel has also been connected with the mercenary forces deployed by South Africa against Angola and Mozambique. In the 1970s Israel aided the FNLA (Angolan National Liberation Front) proxy forces organized and trained by the CIA to forestall the formation of a government led by the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola-now the ruling party of Angola). John Stockwell, who ran the CIA operation against Angola, recollected three arms shipments Israel made in cooperation with the CIA: a plane full of 120 mm shells sent via Zaire to the FNLA and Unita; a shipment of 50 SA-7 missiles (all of which were duds); a boat-load sent to neighboring Zaire in a deal that the Israelis had worked out with President Mobutu, even though the Zairian strong man had broken ties with Israel two years earlier.

When Israel reestablished relations with Zaire (in 1982) and began to train Zairian forces in the Shaba border province, Angola had cause for concern. The leader of the FNLA had been Holden Roberto, brother-in-law of Zairian president Mobutu, Israel's new client. In 1986, it would be established that Zaire acted as a funnel for "covert" U.S. military aid for the Unita forces of Jonas Savimbi.

In 1983, the Angolan News Agency reported that Israeli military experts were training Unita forces in Namibia. Since Zaire began receiving military aid and training from Tel Aviv, Angola has been ill at ease. Its worries increased after discovering that: Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon was personally involved in the organization, training and equipping of "commando" units of the army of Zaire, especially organized for missions along the borders of the RPA [Angola].

In 1984, the Financial Times (London) wrote of "joint Israeli-South African support for Unita forces." Other sources also report the transfer of Israeli arms and financial support to Unita.
In 1983, Angola's President Jose Eduardo dos Santos told Berkeley, California Mayor Eugene (Gus) Newport that an Israeli pilot had been shot down during a South African attack. The Angolan President showed Newport pictures of captured Israeli weapons. The following year, Luanda reported the capture of three mercenaries who said they had been trained by Israeli instructors in Zaire.

Israel has also been involved with the Mozambican "contras," the South African-backed MNR (Mozambique National Resistance or "Renamo"), which has brought great economic and social distress to Mozambique. Renamo has a particular reputation for ideological incoherence, being regarded by most other right-wing insurgencies as a gang of cutthroats. For several years there have been stories coming from Southern Africa of captured mercenaries of Renamo who say they were trained in neighboring Malawi-one of the four nations to maintain relations with Israel after the Organization of African Unity (OAU) declared a diplomatic embargo in 1973-by Israelis. And more than one report has told of "substantial Israeli aid" to the MNR, thought to have been funded by the CIA and Saudi Arabia as well as South Africa and former Portuguese nationalists.

:: DM1 7/24/2006 10:49:00 PM [+] ::
...

An email I just sent to Chuck Hagel - Rep Senator, Nebraska

Dear Senator,

I hope this email finds you and your family in good health. I haven't contacted you for a while and I need to express some of my views on the state of our country. I believe now more than ever that your country needs your strong voice and competent leadership. I am always heartened to see you on the talk shows standing up for the republican wing of the Republican party. I am still out there trying to scare up converts to you and your ideals. I dare say that you remind me of the Eisenhower republicans of yesterday: strong abroad, compassionate at home, but always with enlightened leadership.

I don't know what it would cost, but if you could do a solid half hour of prime time to talk about your ideas and your plans for America's future, then I am positive that you would be elected in 2008 to lead our country and the world out of this darkness that now envelops us and into the light of a brighter future. I know that some of what I am wrinting sounds like political slogans and you are correct! I just want to let you know that once again you have a strong supporter and I will be with you to fight the good fight. Your character, integrity, and leadership are what the country needs.

You and your brother are heroes in my book. I know that you would disagree because you a humble man thankful just to be here. I heard you speak about your experience in Vietnam and I said that is the man for this job. Someone who will do the job with a modest demeanor, but a soaring spirit. I am very, very disturbed over the events overseas and the lack of leadership here at home. I also did four years in the Army (1981-1985) and thankfully never had to participate in combat. My purpose for serving my country was to physically protect my country if needed and to help preserve its values and ideals from harm. In no way did I imagine that the threat would also come from within.

We as a people are so much better than the situations that we currently face. The country needs a voice of hope and compasssion to calm the fears that have terrified us for the last five years. To be frank the United States is more than just a country. It is man's greatest experiment in the human condition. While we need to be ever vigilant, the country and its people could go away tomorrow, but our history is already written in the sands of time forever. My ancestors grew up on plantations and now I sit here a bank examiner for 14 years living the American Dream. When we actually do God's work with "peace on earth and goodwill towards men," then we as a people will get to the "promised land."

We owe it to all of those who came before us and all of those who come after us to take the country to a better tomorrow and a brighter future. Sorry for the long email, but I know that you understand. One more thing please call on the President to do all in his power to stop the madness in the Middle East and the tragedy in Iraq. Yours in the cause. Peace.

:: DM1 7/24/2006 10:12:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, July 23, 2006 ::

A Terrorist State is Born

The following is an excerpt from "The Modern Middle East and North Africa," a book by Lois A. Aroian and Richard P. Mitchell:

The time frame is early 1948

Page 245 -

"Perhaps the most famous and critical instance of brutality occured at the small village of Dayr Yassin west of and on the road to Jerusalem. The I.Z.L. aided by Palmach and Lehi, massacred some 254 men, women, and children although the village had deliberatelt refused to allow Arab troops to occupy it for fear of such an attack. In The Revolt: The Story of the Irgun, I.Z.L. leader Begin justified the massacre on military grounds and claimed that without it, the Jewish state would have been stillborn. Occuring as it did in early April 1948, the onslaught encouraged the exodus of Arabs. Villagers expected to face another Dayr Yassin if they refused to evacuate their villages when pressured by Jewish Forces. Even in Akka, an overwhelming Arab city allotted to the Arab state, Arabs were frightened into leaving. Based on preplanned movements, Jewish forces began moving into western Galilee, part of the proposed Arab entity. Entire populations had no choice but to leave so that even before the British had evacuated and the Jewish state had been proclaimed, some 300,000 Arabs had fled from their homes..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Begin that the authors speak of is Menachem Begin, the late Prime Minister of Israel, who at the time was engaging in terrorist activities against Arabs throughout what is now Israel. And there lies the rub. Israel and the U.S. continue to refer to Hammas and Hezbollah as terrorists groups while conveniently not mentioning that the State of Israel was born of terrorist actions that killed hundreds if not thousands of Arabs. Basically, the "chickens are coming home to roost" once again. And let's stop with the "God's people" nonsense, no God that I pray to would ever condone what happened at Dayr Yassin. The crocodile tears that are being shed for all of the murdered Israelies at the hands of Arab terrorists are truly misplaced. The sons and daughters of Israel must accept the fact that their lives will forever be marked by war, terror, and death. You can not have it both ways. It was fine to engage in terrorist activities as long as it was for the establishment of a Jewish State, but now that Israel has laid claim to most of the biblical Holy Lands, it wants the terrorism to stop. Not going to happen. If only the Arab folks who were affected by the terrorism unleashed by the Jewish terrorists prior to the creation of the State of Israel had short memories. These are the cold hard facts and if it makes me anti-semitic to state the facts as they are and their ramifications so be it. The truth hurts, but until Israel admits that it was created as a result of Jewish terrorism and begins to accept the fact that a viable Jewish state in the middle of hundreds of millions of Arabs is not a possibility, the Middle East problem will never be solved.

:: DM1 7/23/2006 10:11:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, July 15, 2006 ::

I just sent this email to Sean Hannity:

You talk a lot about liberals and paint them as unpatriotic pansies. If that were true then this country would never have been established. I heard you on the air a while ago trying to explain why you never served in the military. You gave a weasely answer and told the caller who had inquired that you were not called to serve. You and I are the same age and you know as well as I do that all you had to do to enlist was go down to the nearest recruiting station. I did that and so did three of my closest friends. We all grew up in D.C. and did not have a lot of respect for the folks who were running the country. However, we knew that it was something we had to do. That right four young black liberal democrats volunteered, unlike you. When the caller called you on you response you stumbled and uttered some nonsense that I don't remember. You a patriot? Believe me, of us see you as a bully and a coward.

You and folks who think like you are the reason why a flawed ideology has enveloped this country and is sending us over a cliff. You talk very tough, but when it was your turn you passed. Growing up in D.C. could be a war at times. Guns, drugs and violence were always part of the equation, and still my friend and I volunteered. You claim to support the troops. Have you ever felt the impact of a grenade explode? Fortunately, I never had to serve in combat, but I have had the experience of feeling the impact of a grenade explode in basic training, and I was standing behind a concrete wall. The concussion was immediate and shook the area. a war plan should have a strategic focus with clear objectives that are well thoughout and reasonable given the specifics of the situation. The troops are in a meat grinder and no amount of rah! rah! is going to change that. The stories that I am hearing from the folks that have been over there are the opposite of the drivel that you spew daily. How about supporting the troops by requiring their leaders to lead? Leadership is more than just talking tough. It is also about being smart, pragmatic, and forward thinking. Bush posseses none of these qualities. Bush has shown himself to be very incompetent and incapable of effectively performing his duties.

This war was strategic mistake. This is why liberals and others don't support it. Those folks in Iraq have been fighting and dying for thousands of years. What arrogance that we think we know what's best for them. As bad as Saddam was, he was our hedge against Iran. The "hedge" is now gone, and you can see the results. If you remember when he gassed the Iranians, the U.S. government had nothing to say. The different groups that comprise Iraq hate each other and were waiting for a chance to settle old scores. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. One more thing, I worked in the RNC for three years after I got out of the Army from 1985 to 1988. As a computer programmer, I was responsible for processing voter lists and other data that helped spur the republicans to the majority statue they now enjoy. I have been a republican for 20 years. The current republican leadership and you have disgraced the party and its legacy for you have put emotion and ideology ahead of reason and logic.

:: DM1 7/15/2006 01:29:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, July 01, 2006 ::

Death in the Chow Line

In my previous post I referred to a death in a chow line from an earlier post. The blog didn't take. Anyway the skinny of the story is that I was watching the Kathy Griffin reality show (shows you how much cable sucks!). Kathy Griffin is a comic that has appeared on numerous shows including Seinfeld. She was invited to entertain the troops in Iraq a few months ago. While visiting a medic unit at a base in Tikrit, she came upon a soldier that had been wounded by mortar fire directed at the base by insurgents. He explained that his fiancee and his friend who were fellows soldiers and standing right next to him were killed. Do you understand? They were killed trying to get some crummy chow while fighting a crummy war. The a-sholes have the nerve to call those who oppose this insanity unpatriotic. Well if being unpatriotic means that I oppose anyone trying to destroy my country and what it stands for well then I am as unpatriotic as it gets! The country's legacy deserves better.

:: DM1 7/01/2006 08:39:00 PM [+] ::
...

Lost for Words

I have stopped blogging regularly because at some point one must ask himself how much? How many times can you state the obvious without becoming boring and uninteresting? Bush is such a failure that flogging him is no longer an option. It's about the future of this Republic and our children, as hokey as that sounds. I haven't been this uncertain since 1968 as a six year old child living in south east D.C. The riots after King was murdered convinced me that things were never going to get better. Combine that with the Vietnam War. I remember a time in probably 1971 or 1972 as an elementary student at Andrew Jackson elementary. Now this is back in the day, but the little red brick schoolhouse is still standing at 35th and R Street N.W. in Georgetown. If you get a chance go see it because across the street is Montrose Park and to this day I still think that it is the best park in Rock Creek Park. Anyway, I'm playing in Montrose Park with my classmates and it was probably a day in May because when it got towards the end of the year our teachers would let us play in the park for the rest of the afternoon after lunch. A young black man who couldn't have been more than 23 or 24 came up to a group of us and started talking. Before you know it we were low crawling, throwing genades, and learning to aim rifles. Although we were using rocks and sticks at the time, the message was clear. Years later, I realized that the brother had probably been in Vietnam and had seen a lot of combat. They sent him back to the States and expected him to act as a normal human being when he had more than likely seen horrific acts of savagery and violence. Now they want to prosecute troops oin Iraq for acting like animals in a jungle. What are they supposed to do? Iraq is much like some of the streets of D.C. Only in D.C. you are not allowed to carry a gun to defend yourself. By the way the gun ban was passed in 1968. You know that we can't have a bunch of niggers with guns. Pretty soon they might try to defend themselves. Many of the soldiers came back to the States hooked on drugs, only knowing how to kill, and no other marketable skills whatsoever. So what did they do? Can you say "seed planters of the current destruction that is infesting black neighborhoods. " Look at the previous post. Folks are dying in CHOW LINE. What the F-ck is going on?

It's just very sad and I for one don't care if a democrat or republican is elected. Only that he or she is decent and honorable. Sh-t we are celebrating the 4th of July on Tuesday. Don't we owe it to those that came before us to be the keepers of the flame? Nixon might have been a crook, but he was not a stupid man, just paranoid. Bush has no intellectual qualities at all that prepare him for what he faces on a daily basis. You wanted an "average American" and you got him. The problem is the average American is ignorant of history both American and World. The average American is arrogant and thinks with his heart not with his head. He is God-fearing bless his heart, but he rarely practices what he preaches. And on and on. How about really rallying around the troops and getting them the f-ck out of Dodge? We owe them this much. Peace.

:: DM1 7/01/2006 08:36:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, May 28, 2006 ::

Three months since my last post and the country is still going down the toilet. I don't get it if Bush was a black liberal democrat, the white wing of the Republican Party would have impeached him already. The was not a typo I meant to say the "white wing." How much incompetence will the white wing allow of Bush? Face it you were wrong and your ideology is flawed. It should have been about the country, yet you were more concerned with your own narrow interest. The 30% of you that are hard core Bush loyalists are traitors to the very ideals of the Constitution which you claim to revere. You wave your Bibles as weapons and political tools. Have you for one second considered that because of your "fake" christianity that God does not hear your payers, nor does he know you. The true Christians that I have met throughout my life never once had to proclaim their faith. It was obvious. You are no different than the snake oil salesmen, the grifters, and the poseurs that litter the Christian money making market. Jesus said that it was incumbent that we help the less fortunate. If we can spend $300 billion in three years in Iraq, obviously we can do more at home. But why should you care? Nearer my God to thee, right? Remove the redwoods from your eyes. None is so blind than those who can not see. Stop the disgrace!

:: DM1 5/28/2006 04:38:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, February 24, 2006 ::

Reposted from AmericaBlog.Com (Contains graphic language!)

Thursday, February 23, 2006I really need to weigh in on this asshole Gordon England by John in DC - 2/23/2006 07:42:00 PM

Joe, in a post below, quotes our illustrious Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England:

If the furor over the port deal should go on, Mr. England said, it would give enemies of the United States aid and comfort: "They want us to become distrustful, they want us to become paranoid and isolationist.Now, my mom reads this blog.

And I don't like gratuitous profanity because it's the easy way to evoke emotion when you don't have the right words. But Gordon England, you're a total asshole. How fucking dare you invoke Osama and September 11 in order to get us to support an administration policy that is in fact CONTRARY to our national security interests? Just because Bush is in bed with the Middle Eastern oil producers we're supposed to roll over and play dead while you guys just give away that store to your petro-buddies? How fucking dare you preach to us about being distrustful and paranoid? You son of a bitches have raised distrust and fear to a high art. You have repeatedly violated the legitimate shock and horror Americans felt after September 11, abused our collective grief and pain and psychosis in order to push your own petty, personal political goals, and now that we catch you red handed, you have the balls to invoke September 11 again?

Gordon England, how fucking dare you, you un-American piece of shit.You want to talk about giving aid and comfort to our enemies? How about your boss single handedly ripping the US Constitution to shreds, spying on American citizens, lying to the American public in order to get us to support his failed wars of convenience that have now so overstrapped our military we're unable to defend ourselves where and when it really matters? How many World Trade Centers do you think Osama would have been more than willing to bomb in order to achieve all that? You people fucking handed Osama the dismantling of our entire democracy, and he didn't even need to fire another shot.

And you lecture us about aiding and comforting the enemy? How fucking dare you even have the nerve to speak to us about what's best for American ports when your God damn administration still hasn't secured container traffic coming into those very same American ports from abroad? What's the latest figure of the percentage of foreign containers shipped into the US that are actually screened (you know, for innocent little things like nukes)? Is it 5% max that gets searched, all the rest just go merrily on their way into our country containing God knows what?And you have the nerve to lecture us about port safety and paranoia?When the president of the United States is so out of touch that he goes on vacation for three days while a hurricane is wiping an entire American city off the map, you better believe I get paranoid.

When the president of the United States is so out of touch that he doesn't even know until the next day that his own vice president nearly killed a man, you better believe I get paranoid.And when the president of the United States runs and hides for the entire day on September 11 while millions of us are forced to turn to Peter Jennings and Rudy Giuliani to be our presidents-by-proxy because George Bush is too much of a chicken shit to show his face for 12 fucking hours while we thought the world was ending, you better believe I get paranoid. Gordon England. Go fuck yourself.

:: DM1 2/24/2006 07:47:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Monday, February 20, 2006 ::

What follows is a poem from my nephew who is a marine is harm's way. I am very proud of him as he performs his duty. These are very dangerous times and I am glad that he is healthy and well. Hope you like it.

I focus on these homeless
trying to find where home is
in them back alley cracks in the mix for real
Trying to lace their shoes so they can click their heals
Trying to find a place where they can get their mail
And in the mean time trying to get a meal
While I clean up these lines trying to get a deal
And most brothers of course are forced to steal
They resort to the steal, still I can't swallow this pill
Not even in gel form, when it rains it hailstorms
And the crime rate jumps every time a male's born
But we've got nine ways to trump be well warned
Most pawn themselves under some king and sell for him
I even see these young with guns in their backpacks
We rarely see twenty-one like a game of blackjack
And those are the sad facts, just knowing the stats stacked
Against you'll blow your hair out blonde like Mad Max
So many from broken homes grown with these scars
It tends to fall apart when you build a house of cards
That's why they say hope floats 'cause black folks can't swim
I navigate that low boat to pull ya'll right back in
We toss these issues like tissues and try to forget
If there's no visual on the issues then how can they exist
And if these issues don't exist, then what's there to admit
And politicians can't be blamed so their platforms legit
But I've held a few positions in one or two soup kitchens
A couple of group missions to give these youth vision
I'm not the type that'll find it amusing to talk about this confusion
And not offer solution And I speak urgency 'cause the emergency's now
So I develop my plan, put my hand to the plow
'Cause folks are panicking now, let's break these fantasies down
We run these black neighborhoods, so why can't they be ours?
'Cause we lack leadership and most black leaders quit
It hard to back your mayor when even he needs a fix
So problems go on unfixed, society grow more unstitched
It's not about being rich, but it's about being rich
In knowledge, in culture, in stature, in pride
To be honest it first has to happen inside
It seems the issue of us isn't dealt with enough
I only look down on you, if I'm helping you up

:: DM1 2/20/2006 05:25:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 ::

The Phony Anger

It's amazing to see the phony indignation on the right about remarks made at Coretta Scott King's funeral. She would have said the same things if she could have spoken. The right is wrong on most accounts. The agenda is narrow, self-focused, and definitely unchristian.

:: DM1 2/08/2006 05:26:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 ::

Coretta Scott King

I haven't been blogging as much lately, but I have to take this time and say a word about Coretta Scott King. She was definitely a "Queen" of a woman. To take the torch from a martyred husband. Not only did she succeed, but she succeeded magnificently with class and grace. I feel like an old man even though I am not quite 45. So many giants have passed the scene and we are truly the worse for it. Four presidents are sitting on stage paying tribute to this woman. It speaks volumes about her legacy and even more about her character and integrity. May she and her husband rest in peace.

Da' Militant One

:: DM1 2/07/2006 12:49:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, January 27, 2006 ::

IT's All Already Been Said!

I haven't been writing my blog lately because everything that is going down with Bush "The Dumber" is coming to a head. It must be very embarassing being a Bush supporter and having to lie to yourself everyday to ease the pain of knowing that YOU are responsible for this idiot and all the his f-ckups. It's very sad what has happened to the country and you all are DIRECTLY responsible. It will only get worse before it gets better and as I said before I hope that you all CHOKE on it!

:: DM1 1/27/2006 07:39:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 ::

Here's a repost of Dumbass Disgracing the Country Once Again:

I Thought This Was A Joke When I Heard It

Fresh Dubya

As you can probably see I was injured myself, not here at the hospital but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won.

-- Statement offered in the presence of servicemen and women wounded in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan (rather than by brush on Dubya's ranch), Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, Jan. 1, 2006

What an absolute ASS! This is the country's Commander-In-Chief? What a complete disgrace! It gets more embarrasing by the day. Enough is enough!

:: DM1 1/03/2006 07:48:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 ::

Aiding and Abetting the Terroists

Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases Plan Challenges Over Spy Efforts
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 - Defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.

The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out.

The expected legal challenges, in cases from Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Virginia, add another dimension to the growing controversy over the agency's domestic surveillance program and could jeopardize some of the Bush administration's most important courtroom victories in terror cases, legal analysts say.

The question of whether the N.S.A. program was used in criminal prosecutions and whether it improperly influenced them raises "fascinating and difficult questions," said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who has studied terrorism prosecutions.
"It seems to me that it would be relevant to a person's case," Professor Tobias said. "I would expect the government to say that it is highly sensitive material, but we have legal mechanisms to balance the national security needs with the rights of defendants. I think judges are very conscientious about trying to sort out these issues and balance civil liberties and national security."

While some civil rights advocates, legal experts and members of Congress have said President Bush did not have authority to order eavesdropping by the security agency without warrants, the White House and the Justice Department continued on Tuesday to defend the legality and propriety of the program. Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, declined to comment in Crawford, Tex., when asked about a report in The New York Times that the security agency had tapped into some of the country's main telephone arteries to conduct broader data-mining operations in the search for terrorists.
But Mr. Duffy said: "This is a limited program. This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches."

He added: "The president believes that he has the authority - and he does - under the Constitution to do this limited program. The Congress has been briefed. It is fully in line with the Constitution and also protecting American civil liberties." Disclosure of the N.S.A. program has already caused ripples in the legal system, with a judge resigning in protest from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court last week. The surveillance court, established by Congress in 1978 to grant warrants in terrorism and espionage cases, wants a briefing from the Bush administration on why it bypassed the court and ordered eavesdropping without war
rants.

At the same time, defense lawyers in terrorism cases around the country say they are preparing letters and legal briefs to challenge the N.S.A. program on behalf of their clients, many of them American citizens, and to find out more about how it might have been used. They acknowledge legal hurdles, including the fact that many defendants waived some rights to appeal as part of their plea deals. Government officials, in defending the value of the security agency's surveillance program, have said in interviews that it played a critical part in at least two cases that led to the convictions of Qaeda associates, Iyman Faris of Ohio, who admitted taking part in a failed plot to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge, and Mohammed Junaid Babar of Queens, who was implicated in a failed plot to bomb British targets.

David B. Smith, a lawyer for Mr. Faris, said he planned to file a motion in part to determine whether information about the surveillance program should have been turned over. Lawyers said they were also considering a civil case against the president, saying that Mr. Faris was the target of an illegal wiretap ordered by Mr. Bush. A lawyer for Mr. Babar declined to comment.
Government officials with knowledge of the program have not ruled out the possibility that it was used in other criminal cases, and a number of defense lawyers said in interviews that circumstantial evidence had led them to question whether the security agency identified their clients through wiretaps.

The first challenge is likely to come in Florida, where lawyers for two men charged with Jose Padilla, who is jailed as an enemy combatant, plan to file a motion as early as next week to determine if the N.S.A. program was used to gain incriminating information on their clients and their suspected ties to Al Qaeda. Kenneth Swartz, one of the lawyers in the case, said, "I think they absolutely have an obligation to tell us" whether the agency was wiretapping the defendants. In a Virginia case, Edward B. MacMahon Jr., a lawyer for Ali al-Timimi, a Muslim scholar in Alexandria who is serving a life sentence for inciting his young followers to wage war against the United States overseas, said the government's explanation of how it came to suspect Mr. Timimi of terrorism ties never added up in his view.

F.B.I. agents were at Mr. Timimi's door days after the Sept. 11 attacks to question him about possible links to terrorism, Mr. MacMahon said, yet the government did not obtain a warrant through the foreign intelligence court to eavesdrop on his conversations until many months later. Mr. MacMahon said he was so skeptical about the timing of the investigation that he questioned the Justice Department about whether some sort of unknown wiretap operation had been conducted on the scholar or his young followers, who were tied to what prosecutors described as a "Virginia jihad" cell.

"They told me there was no other surveillance," Mr. MacMahon said. "But the fact is that the case against a lot of these guys just came out of nowhere because they were really nobodies, and it makes you wonder whether they were being tapped." John Zwerling, a lawyer for one of Mr. Timimi's followers, Seifullah Chapman, who is serving a 65-year sentence in federal prison in the case, said he and lawyers for two of the other defendants in the case planned to send a letter to the Justice Department to find out if N.S.A. wiretaps were used against their clients. If the Justice Department declines to give an answer, Mr. Zwerling said, they plan to file a motion in court demanding access to the information.

"We want to know, Did this N.S.A. program make its way into our case, and how was it used?" Mr. Zwerling said. "It may be a difficult trail for us in court, but we're going to go down it as far as we can." Defense lawyers in several other high-profile terrorism prosecutions, including the so-called Portland Seven and Lackawanna Six cases, said they were also planning to file legal challenges or were reviewing their options. "Given what information has come out, with the president admitting that they had avoided the courts, then the question becomes, do you try to learn whether something like that happened in this case?" said Patrick Brown, a Buffalo lawyer in the Lackawanna case. "I would have to talk to my client about whether that's a road we want to go down."

Gerry Spence, who is the lead counsel representing Brandon Mayfield, a Portland lawyer who was arrested in error last year in connection with the Madrid bombings and is now suing the government, said of the security agency program: "We are going to look into that. The calmest word I can use to describe how I feel about this is that I am aghast." Because the program was so highly classified, government officials say, prosecutors who handled terrorism cases apparently did not know of the program's existence. Any information they received, the officials say, was probably carefully shielded to protect the true source.

But defense lawyers say they are eager to find out whether prosecutors - intentionally or not - misled the courts about the origins of their investigations and whether the government may have held on to N.S.A. wiretaps that could point to their clients' innocence. Stanley Cohen, a New York lawyer who represented Patrice Lumumba Ford in the Portland Seven case, said many defendants would face significant obstacles in mounting legal challenges to force the government to reveal whether material obtained through the security agency's program was used in their cases.

"You really could have standing problems" for many of the defendants, Mr. Cohen said.
But some Justice Department prosecutors, speaking on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified, said they were concerned that the agency's wiretaps without warrants could create problems for the department in terrorism prosecutions both past and future. "If I'm a defense attorney," one prosecutor said, "the first thing I'm going to say in court is, 'This was an illegal wiretap.' "

:: DM1 12/28/2005 08:22:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, December 17, 2005 ::

Another Thought

How much more do some of you need to see before Bush screws everything up even worse? He does not have the intelligence nor the pragmatism to change course . It will get worse before it gets better. The right wing of the repulican party will stop at nothing to retain power and Bush is going to do all he can to make it happen.

:: DM1 12/17/2005 09:14:00 AM [+] ::
...

Maybe the Tide is Turning
In response Bush's attics as M"Master of the Universe" the democrats and four brave republicans voted against cloture on extention of several provisions of the Patriot Act. Read all about it.
Dems block passage of Patriot Act in Senate December 17, 2005
BY DAVID ESPO

WASHINGTON -- In a stinging defeat for President Bush, Senate Democrats blocked passage Friday of a new Patriot Act to combat terrorism at home, depicting the measure as a threat to the constitutional liberties of innocent Americans. Republicans spurned calls for a short-term measure to prevent the year-end expiration of law enforcement powers enacted after Sept. 11.
''The president will not sign such an extension,'' said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and lawmakers on each side of the issue blamed the other for congressional gridlock.
The Senate voted 52-47 to advance a House-passed bill to a final vote, eight short of the 60 needed to overcome the filibuster backed by nearly all Senate Democrats and a handful of the 45 Republicans.

''We can come together to give the government the tools it needs to fight terrorism and protect the rights and freedoms of innocent citizens,'' said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), arguing that provisions permitting government access to confidential personal data lacked safeguards to protect the innocent. ''We need to be more vigilant,'' agreed Sen. John Sununu, a Republican from New Hampshire. Some provisions continue Frist likened the bill's opponents to those who ''have called for a retreat and defeat strategy in Iraq. That's the wrong strategy in Iraq. It is the wrong strategy here at home.'' The practical implications of an expiration of the original law remained somewhat clouded. James Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said law enforcement agencies could continue using Patriot Act provisions against all known terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the Zarqawi group in Iraq. He said even newly discovered members would be subject to Patriot Act investigative tools. The events on the Senate floor underscored the extent of political change since 2001. Then, Feingold cast the only vote against the original Patriot Act, which was designed to give those tracking terrorists some of the authority that had been available only in intelligence investigations.

Much of the controversy involved powers granted to law enforcement agencies to gain access to a wealth of personal data, including library and medical records, in secret, as part of investigations into suspected terrorist activity. The bill also includes a four-year extension of the government's ability to conduct roving wiretaps -- which may involve multiple phones -- and continues the authority to wiretap ''lone wolf'' terrorists who may operate on their own.
Access to various personal records is obtained by order of a secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

AP

:: DM1 12/17/2005 09:08:00 AM [+] ::
...

Are The Terrorists Winning?

After hearing that "C+ Augustus" allowed intelligence agencies to secretly spy on American citizens I thought about Osama and why he hasn't attacked us since 9/11. I started to write a blog, but found this analysis on www.uzzflash.com this morning. It says it all.

The Terrorists Don't Need to Destroy Democracy. Bush is Doing Their Work for The
December 17, 2005

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Bush's war on terrorism is an utter failure. In every respect, terrorism is growing, including in Iraq. And Bush is giving them the tools to commit another series of hijackings by letting them carry box cutters and knives on planes again. How transparent a move is that? He is practically inviting them to hijack another airplane so that he can blame the Democrats for letting it happen, when it is Bush and Cheney that are using terrorism, practically letting it happen, in order to consolidate their political power. Now we learn that Bush has illegally allowed spying on Americans -- and that the Pentagon is spying on Anti-War Protestors. It's ironic that the Berlin Wall fell when Bush is trying to create another iron curtain. Only we're on the Soviet side of it now. The terrorists -- including Osama who Bush swore to catch but in his usual inept performance failed to do so -- are justing sitting back and watching Bush do their work for them: destroying democracy.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

:: DM1 12/17/2005 08:57:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, November 19, 2005 ::

Enough Is Enough

Enough is enough!. What the f*ck is going on? Who are those a**holes masquerading as republicans? Haskert, Delay, Hunter, Frist, Kyl, Cornin, and their spawn are f*cking this country up big time. You idiots that voted in these a*ssholes and that moron Bush have blood on your hands. Over 18,000 casualties and counting. For what? A fool's paradise? You all are an embarassment not only to the country, but to humanity. If you all are true christians then there truly is no God.

:: DM1 11/19/2005 08:16:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 ::

A Memo I wrote to that Idiot Pat Roberts in June 2003:

Memo to Pat Roberts:

What a poor excuse for a senator. What are you hiding? Bush told a lie to the American People when he declared in his State of the Union Address that Iraq had received uranium from Niger. If being investigated for lying to the American People is good enough for Bill Clinton, then it's good enough for Bush. Bush didn't lie under oath? That's your defense? Basically what you are saying is that it is perfectly alright to lie to the American People as long as you don't do it under oath. How about this if Bush is such an honest man, put him under oath and have him declare that all of his statements about Iraq and WMD were true. I doubt that he would take the offer. Pat Roberts you should immediately resign as you don't possess loyalty to the people you serve. Your loyalty is with Bush and you more interested in protecting him then the American People. What an utter disgrace!

:: DM1 6/12/2003 07:16:19 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:20:00 AM [+] ::
...

Blog from June 2003:

Thursday, June 05, 2003 ::

Memo to the Sheep:

Let me get this straight Bill Clinton lies about oral sex and is impeached. The Dauphin lies about wars, the economy, and who knows what else and he is exalted. What is wrong with the picture? Clinton lied under oath? Well he was roundly condemned and suffered legal and political consequences. And while Clinton has the morals of a cat he was a tireless worker for the country and its citizens. I didn't vote for Clinton in '92 or '96, but a review of his entire record suggests that the continued criticism by mainly the Right is dubious at best. If those on the Right are truly sincere in their beliefs, they will hold the current occupant of the White House to the same high standards of honesty, integrity, and trust. Accountability was the catch word for Clinton; however, nothing it seems is Bush's fault. Now it really doesn't matter in the scheme of things whether the Right ever holds Bush accountable, but by not living up to the standards previously established, they bear partial responsibility for the fate of the nation and its people. History will be the judge and history as we all know can be a cruel and brutal mistress. How many soldiers' deaths in Iraq are acceptable? They will continue to die and for what? Two empty trailers? I sure hope that more is found not only for the credibility of the war, but the credibility of the nation.
:: DM1 6/05/2003 07:58:21 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:18:00 AM [+] ::
...

A blog I wrote in May 2003:

:: Saturday, May 17, 2003 ::

Memo to "Fox and Friends":

Since you are asking if the Dems are sincere in supporting the Dauphin, why don't you ask if the publicity stunt of flying to the aircraft carrier with real heroes was sincere. In fact why don't you hold the Appointed one to the same high standards as Bill Clinton. When Clinton lied about sex, how many Americans died? When the fraud lied about WMD in Iraq, how many Americans and Iraqis died? Ask about his lack of a domestic policy. Put his entire record up against Clinton. How many jobs were generated while Clinton was president? What about the fraud? If the so-called job stimulus tax cut is so great will generate 1.4 million jobs, what about the other 600,000+ that have been lost under his mismanagment? Monica never gave Clinton what you folks have been giving the fraud. Get up off your knees and do some journalism for a change.

:: DM1 5/17/2003 08:44:35 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:17:00 AM [+] ::
...

I've been reposting blogs I wrote years ago to show that all the damage that Bush has done was anticipated by some of us well before his actions came to light. Here is another one:

: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 ::

Memo to The Washington Times:

I see that the paper is back to normal. After seeing commentaries a few week ago by Paul Craig Roberts and others questioning the coming war in Iraq, I see that the "useful idiots" are now telling us to shutup, support the war, take the economic hit and "kiss" Bush's ring. Your paper gives great license to those calling peace protesters "anti-American". Well, reading the nonsense that the "useful idiots" spout couldn't be more "anti-American". Why didn't Bush include the coming war in his budget. The excuse that we are not at war yet is illogical. Bush has an idea of how much the cost of the war will be, but then informing the public would prove the lie that is his budget. How much longer will Bush be allowed to drag down this nation both domestically and abroad. Well, your Paper has hitched its wagon to this Administration and its thoroughly incompetent crew. Good luck explaining lunacy and perfidy that is this M.O. of this sad lot. Your words will not sway opinion and history will be the judge. I spent much of 2001 explaining to folks why Bill Clinton's legacy was secure, two words: George Bush. If affirmative action is unbecoming of a 17-year old black kid from chicago, it is certainly unbecoming of a gadfly with no business being President.

:: DM1 2/19/2003 08:52:25 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:13:00 AM [+] ::
...

A Memo I wrote to Dick Gephardt more than three years:

Memo to Dick Gephardt:

Dear Congressman Gephardt,I am very disappointed in your actions the other day in giving the appointed president another photo-op. I am a republican and I am amazed that you still don't get it. The current administration cares nothing about you or your position. It only cares that you have "cut" Senator Daschle off at the knees and will now use you to further republican goals. I do not like the direction that this country is taking. I, too, served my country in the Army for four years and as veterans both you and I have a duty to protect this country from foreign enemies and domestic incompetence. You have failed many in your party and many others who are looking for men of courage to stand up against an administration that is bent on war at any cost. I understand that you have visions of running for president in 2004. Well, to win you need to show true leadership. The only thing I saw the other day was a man who stepped on his principles and betrayed many in his party. I see that it is up to those of us who truly understand what Bush and Cheney to carry the burden to ensure that their misguided politics do not continue past 2004. You have made that effort more difficult with your recent actions. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and I will vote for him in 2004. He is showing courage, vision, and leadership and I only hope that some of his qualities begin to rub off on you.

:: DM1 10/16/2002 07:34:32 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:08:00 AM [+] ::
...

A blog I wrote before the war:

Friday, September 27, 2002 ::

First let me say that George Bush is not as dumb as folks would believe, but he is also not as smart as he thinks he is. The speech at the U.N. was brilliant because he put together a coherent argument on why Iraq is a problem. He also boxed himself in a corner from which he is now trying to escape. War with Iraq serves many useful purposes for Bush and republicans.
:: DM1 9/27/2002 11:29:01 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:04:00 AM [+] ::
...

This is a re-repost from four years ago:

:: Friday, August 23, 2002 ::

Blast From the Past:

October 2001 response to some Knucklehead from the Washington Times on "Clinton-Hating". It is very disgraceful the way you and other "Clinton Haters" can not let it go. My memory is not as short as your integrity. As I remember things, every time Clinton engaged in any retaliation or attack against terrorists or dictators, people like you said that he was trying to divert attention from his scandals. So much for unity and standing behind your president.

Let's go back to Kosovo. Here is an excerpt from an article dated 4/29/99:"

WASHINGTON -- In a sharp challenge to President Clinton, the House voted Wednesday to bar the President from sending ground troops to Yugoslavia without Congressional approval and then on a tie vote refused to support NATO air strikes against Serbia. The votes came during a day of heated and sometimes anguished speeches that showcased deep divisions in Congress over the escalating conflict in the Balkans. The all-day session marked the first formal Congressional debate since NATO began its bombing campaign on March 24 to drive the forces of the Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic, out of Kosovo. The Senate had voted on March 23 to approve the air strikes. The House voted 249 to 180 to require the President to seek Congressional approval for ground forces. Forty-five Democrats and an independent joined 203 Republicans to support the measure. Sixteen Republicans and 164 Democrats opposed the bill. But the surprise came when the House finished its deliberations this evening by failing to pass a Democratic resolution intended to give symbolic support to the President's air campaign. The measure failed in a tie vote of 213 to 213 even though Speaker J. Dennis Hastert threw his support behind it. In all, 31 Republicans broke with their party to back the air campaign and 26 Democrats voted against it.

"Wait there's more. How about May 1999:

WASHINGTON (May 2, 1999 5:34 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - President Clinton welcomed Yugoslavia's dramatic release Sunday of three U.S. soldiers, but his administration rebuffed a request for a pause in the airstrikes and for a meeting between Slobodan Milosevic and the president until the Serb leader agrees to all NATO demands. "This gesture ... of goodwill cannot obliterate or overcome the stench of evil and death that has been inflicted in those killing fields in Kosovo," Defense Secretary William Cohen said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Cohen and other U.S. officials sounded a hardline, suggesting Milosevic had simply engaged in a "PR stunt" in releasing the American prisoners. But the administration was coming under pressure from a variety of sources to seek a diplomatic end to the crisis - from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who arranged the soldiers' release, to two top Republican leaders in Congress. "As Jesse Jackson would say, 'Give peace a chance here,"' Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said on CNN's "Late Edition." "There seems to be some momentum. There's seems to be an opportunity. We should seize this moment." House Majority Whip Tom Delay, R-Texas, told "Fox News Sunday" that Clinton should meet Milosevic to negotiate an end to "this failed policy of bombing for diplomacy."

How about this one:

In Washington, some congressmen are calling for an immediate withdrawal of American forces from the Balkans. "The U.S. involvement should end now. We never should have been involved in the first place," a spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) told CNS.Paul and 17 other Members of Congress – two Democrats and fifteen Republicans – are suing President Clinton in federal court for allegedly violating the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act by ordering air strikes in Yugoslavia.House Majority Whip Rep. Tom DeLay was also blunt on the bombing, as he addressed the House today. " I don't think we should be bombing in the Balkans. I don't think the present military presence should be maintained," said DeLay. DeLay also reiterated his support for a measure introduced by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) calling for the withdrawal of "any U.S. forces presently engaged in the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia."

Here's another one:

WASHINGTON, May 6 (IPS) - Despite six weeks of non-stop NATO bombing operations against Yugoslavia, the US Congress has been unable to form any consensus either for or against Washington's biggest military engagement since the 1991 Gulf War. For the administration and the Atlantic alliance, the lack of clear Congressional support for the campaign was ominous, given the failure so far to achieve any of their war aims on the ground and the legendary impatience of the US public. Votes taken in both the Senate and the House of Representatives - as well as ad hoc diplomatic efforts over the past week - exposed deep divisions among both Democrats and Republicans over the war and the way it was being fought. ''Not only can we (Congress) not speak with one voice on Kosovo,'' said one aide to a key Democratic Senator. ' 'We can't even speak with three or four or five. People are all over the map on this.'' Those divisions, both ideological and partisan, reflected differences between interventionists and anti-interventionists, isolationists and internationalists, and realists and idealists in both parties. They also reflected frustrations by many Republicans over their failure to dent the popularity of President Bill Clinton. For example, right-wing Republicans who back the military at any cost - particularly when US troops are engaged in combat - have done the most to undermine support for the NATO campaign, or ''Clinton's War,'' as they refer to it. Led by Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the driving force behind last year's unsuccessful impeachment effort against Clinton, these forces believed that the Kosovo intervention would end in disaster and seal the president's disgrace. Their position infuriated both the Democrats and much of the Republican foreign-policy establishment. The lack of support for the war defied the ''rally-'round-the-flag'' impulse which normally sweeps Congress once US troops are committed to action. The fact, however, that until Wednesday, when two Apache helicopter pilots were killed in a training mission in Albania, no US soldiers had died in the conflict appears to have tempered that reflex. Congressional incoherence on Kosovo became clear last week when the House cast three key votes on US strategy. The first - which requires Clinton to seek prior Congressional approval before committing ground forces to Kosovo - passed 249-180, with 45 Democrats joining the vast majority of Republicans on the vote. That result, which affirmed the constitutional role of Congress in war-making, was expected. But then, in a stunning blow to Clinton's policy, the House voted 213-213 to reject a resolution authorising US involvement in the current NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia. In that vote, 26 Democrats joined some 190 Republicans to defeat the measure, which was virtually identical to one passed by the Republican-led Senate five weeks before. While House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the titular leader of the Republicans, voted for the measure, DeLay led the opposition, actively lobbying members on the floor. ''The extreme right wing of the Republican party remains in control of that party,'' commented an angry and amazed Minority Leader Dick Gephardt after the vote. But then, having just voted against the air war, the House rejected a third resolution - to withdraw all US military forces from the war within 30 days - 139-209, with a majority of Republicans, however, voting to pull out. In yet another reversal, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee the following day more than doubled a six- billion-dollar request by Clinton to fund US participation in the air war and humanitarian relief for Kosovar refugees. That bill, which is now worth 12.9 billion dollars, is expected to pass this week. ''Congress Set to Provide Money, But No Guidance, for Kosovo Mission,'' is the way the authoritative 'Congressional Weekly' headlined the votes, although some editorial writers and many Democrats were considerably harsher in assessing the House's performance. The incoherence, especially among Republicans, has not been confined to the House. Earlier this week, the leadership of both parties used procedural manoeuvres to prevent a vote on a resolution that would authorise Clinton to use ''all necessary force'' to achieve US and NATO's war aims in Yugoslavia. The resolution was sponsored by Republican Senator and presidential aspirant John McCain and two prominent foreign-policy Democrats, all of whom had emerged as among the war's foremost defenders since the air campaign began Mar 24. The idea behind the resolution was to empower Clinton to move towards a ground war in Yugoslavia without having to seek further authority from Congress. Fearing the resolution's defeat, the administration worked actively to get it off the agenda. But the debate surrounding the resolution highlighted deep ideological and partisan differences within the Senate. Like his right-wing colleagues in the House, for example, Majority Leader Trent Lott repeatedly referred to the NATO operation as ''Clinton's war.'' And, echoing anti-war Democrats of a previous generation, many Republicans said the proposal amounted to a ''Gulf of Tonkin'' resolution which in 1964 gave President Lyndon Johnson the authority to carry out the disastrous Vietnam War. In an ironic reversal, many Democrats, including some who participated in the anti-Vietnam War movement, argued that Washington's and NATO's credibility was at stake in Kosovo and withholding military options at this point would only undermine that credibility and encourage Serbia to resist. That reversal highlighted a trend within both parties which has become increasingly pronounced since the end of the Cold War. Democrats, the ''doves'' accused of isolationism for their opposition to the Vietnam War, have become interventionist ''hawks'' in the post-Cold War era. Republicans, the hawks of the Cold War, on the other hand, have become increasingly opposed to Washington's overseas entanglements, even as they support big increases in US military spending.

So as you can see Clinton was opposed by the republican congress at almost every turn. The likes of Tom Delay and Trent Lott did as much to further the cause of those who want to destroy America by thwarting Clinton at almost every turn. Don't worry, I will send you more examples concerning Clinton's fight on terrorism. The feckless nature of the republican congress concerning Kosovo is still vivid for me so I used it as my first argument. So don't tell me what Clinton would have done. Instead tell me about the unpatriotic nature of the republican congress in supporting the president when he needed them to rally around him and the country! I understand that this is impossible for people like you. Facts be damned!
:: DM1 8/23/2002 12:25:47 PM [+] :: ...

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:52:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote this letter to the editor of the Washington Times more than three years ago:

:: DM1 7/18/2002 03:55:38 AM [+] :: ...

Memo to The Washington Times:

I really wonder about the folks that sit on the editorial board. Why don't you rename the paper "The Republican Conservative Times" If there was ever an "American Taliban" it is surely your paper. Lest we forget that Bush lost the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes. Your paper crucified Clinton, not for winning, but for not getting at least 50% of the vote. Not only did Bush not get at least 50% of the vote he came in second with respect to all votes counted. When evidence came out in the many "scandals" surrounding Clinton, your paper printed them all, you even printed rape allegations on your front page about him. Your "jihad" against Clinton is about as pathetic as your lack of critical analysis of the 2000 Election. Remember that prior to 9/11 Bush was hovering at 50% in the polls. To say that the voters put the 2000 election behind them prior to 9/11 shows the disconnect that the "elites" in your paper have with most of America. Now unlike the total lack of support that most republicans gave Cinton, the democrats are supporting Bush almost totally. But beware, his support is based on the attack of 9/11 and the need to exact justice, revenge, or whatever you want to call it. His domestic policies are still wrongheaded and not well thought out. His foreign policy team other than Colin Powell, who he failed to listen to prior to 9/11, is failing him. His unilateralist polcies in the first six months of the 2001 created unnecessary problems when Bush had to go back to the same world community after 9/11 for support. No, our support of Bush is an extension of our support for the ideals and freedoms of our country. Now if folks such as yourself had shown Clinton the same type of support maybe we would not be dealing with the bitterness and hatred that exists against us today. Also, folks in your paper are going out of their way to blame Clinton for 9/11. Well Bush had been president for 8 months when this happened. A report outlining terrorist threats to the US had been presented to him in the Spring of 2001. He did nothing to address the concerns raised until after the 9/11 attack. Your paper preaches personal accountability and responsibility. It would be a good start for you to practice what you preach.

:: DM1 7/18/2002 03:52:37 AM [+] :: ...

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:47:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote this more than three years ago:

:: DM1 7/16/2002 10:41:31 PM [+] :: ...

I see that blood is in the water. King George is feeling the heat. To all concerned; "Beware of your heads my friends!" Enemies of the State! The conservatives are not about to roll over. Let's hope that all of you have the stomach for the coming battle .

:: DM1 7/16/2002 10:38:53 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:44:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote this more than three years ago:

:: Monday, July 01, 2002 ::

It's time for republicans to stand up an say, "The emperor has no clothes!" Subtract 9/11 from the ledger and the Bush Adminstration's record is dubious at best. Like many companies with the inability to truly be profitable, the Bush team has resorted to leveraging 9/11 to cover it's "losses". Folks are always talking about selecting the "best qualified". Well that maxim sure was buried by the results of the 2000 election. What has resulted is what you get when someone who is appointed to the presidency is wholly unqualified. One last thing with all of the issues facing Bush and the U.S. how did Bush find time to read "BIAS" by Bernie Goldberg? I would have been more reassured if he had been reading Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". Just a few observations from a disgusted REP!

:: DM1 7/01/2002 01:06:11 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:42:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote this more than two years ago:

:: Saturday, June 21, 2003 ::

Memo to Sheep:

These are the words of leading conservative republicans in the matter of presidential lies and misleading statements

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois), “There is a visibility factor in the president's public acts, and those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for the law are hard to sweep under the rug...They reverberate, they ricochet all over the land and provide the worst possible example for our young people.”

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) “The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president's defenders…We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the president does not suffer the legal and constitutional consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing the president to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come…laws not enforced are open invitations for more serious and more criminal behavior.”

Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) “It would be wrong for you to tell America's children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter.”

Steve Buyer (R- Indiana) “I have also heard some senators from both sides of the aisle state publicly: I think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, to state publicly that you believe that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but for some reason you have this desire not to remove the president -- that desire, though, does not square with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate's precedents for removing federal judges for similar offenses.”

Rep. Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina, Now Senator) “The president of the United States sets atop of the legal pyramid. If there's reasonable doubt about his ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land, our future would be better off if that individual is removed. And let me tell you where it all comes down to me. If you can go back and explain to your children and your constituents how you can be truthful and misleading at the same time, good luck.”

Of course, the president that they were speaking of was Bill Clinton. The president that their words apply to is George Bush. Lying about sex: Number of casualties - 0. Lying about war: 190+ killed, hundreds wounded and counting. Who are you going to believe Bush, or your own lying eyes?

:: DM1 6/21/2003 01:41:35 PM [+] :: ...

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:35:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote the following blog more than two years ago:

Saturday, June 14, 2003 ::

Memo to Sheep:

This is an except of a news report today From Jonathan Landay of Knight-Ridder:"A senior CIA official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the intelligence agency informed the White House on March 9, 2002 -- 10 months before Bush's nationally televised speech -- that an agency source who had traveled to Niger could not confirm European intelligence reports that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from the West African country.Despite the CIA's misgivings, Bush said in his State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa."Three senior administration officials said Vice President Dick Cheney and some officials on the National Security Council staff and at the Pentagon ignored the CIA's reservations and argued that the president and others should include the allegation in their case against Saddam." end

Alright Sports Fans, can you say "smoking gun!". The lies are getting heavier and heavier still. They are lying to your face and getting your young warriors killed. When is enough, enough? They are spending you into debt that your grand children can't repay. The fate of the country is your responsibility. Some of us are sounding the alarm, and yet, you do not hear. Still the chickens are coming home to roost and roost they shall with or without you!
:: DM1 6/14/2003 10:43:55 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:33:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 ::

The Fall of the Hammer

Texas Court Issues Warrant for DeLay

By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer Wed Oct 19, 2:27 PM ET
AUSTIN, Texas - A Texas court on Wednesday issued a warrant for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay' s arrest, and set an initial $10,000 bail as a routine step before his first court appearance on conspiracy and state money laundering charges.

Travis County court officials said DeLay was ordered to appear at the Fort Bend County, Texas, jail for booking, where he'd likely be fingerprinted and photographed. DeLay's lawyers had hoped to avoid such a spectacle.
The warrant, known as a capias, is "a matter of routine and bond will be posted," DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin said.
The lawyer declined to say when DeLay would surrender to authorities but said the lawmaker would make his first court appearance Friday morning.
The charges against the Texas Republican stem from allegations that a DeLay-founded Texas political committee funneled corporate money into state GOP legislative races through the National Republican Party.

:: DM1 10/19/2005 05:34:00 PM [+] ::
...

The Liar

Not Only Did Bush Know - But He Lied About It To The Press
Originally published Oct 19, 2005

The Nation takes the Daily News story and kicks it up a notch:

Wait a minute! Two years ago, the White House--via McClellan--definitively declared that Rove was not "involved" in the CIA leak. But if Bush at some point upbraided his guru about the leak that means (a) Bush knew that Rove was involved and (b) Bush countenanced McClellan's dissemination of a false cover story. This is evidence that Bush was a party to the attempted White House cover-up and that Bush might have directly lied about the issue. On September 30, 2003 [link added], he was questioned by reporters about the leak investigation. Here's an excerpt:

Q: Yesterday we were told that Rove had no role in it--
The President: Yes.
Q: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him?
The President: Listen, I know of nobody-- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody leaked classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.
Quite possibly, we've found Bush's "I did not have sex with that woman" moment.The "appropriate action" - again - apparently is to promote them to deputy chief of staff and sweep your knowledge of it under the carpet.
Posted at 11:22 AM

:: DM1 10/19/2005 05:31:00 PM [+] ::
...

Weary of the Fight

Sorry folks, I have grown weary of the fight. The chickens are roosting and indictments are pending. None of this is a surprise to me. What does surprise me is that some of the sheep are still heading to the slaughter. Bush never gave a f-ck about you and he and his henchmen are proving it everyday. You voted for a total incompetent that could not lead his way out of a paperbag. Remember that after 9/11 Bush had a 90% approval rating. HE squandered his support and YOU enabled him by being petty, partisan and STUPID with an emphasis on STUPID. You need to look at the demographics that Bush and his henchmen go after. The mark is usually a white christian that is not well educated. There is a reason for this. You can be manipulated very easily. Your continued support of this charlatan is proof of this fact. You deserve better yet you settle for B.S. Well the future is out of your hands and that's the way it should be because you have forfeited your right to be part of the solution.

:: DM1 10/19/2005 05:10:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, October 14, 2005 ::

From the Feelings are Mutual Category, "Black People Don't Care About George Bush"

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, October 13, 2005; 3:09 PM

In what may turn out to be one of the biggest free-falls in the history of presidential polling, President Bush's job-approval rating among African Americans has dropped to 2 percent, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.

The drop among blacks drove Bush's overall job approval ratings to an all-time low of 39 percent in this poll. By comparison, 45 percent of whites and 36 percent of Hispanics approve of the job Bush is doing.

A few months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found Bush's approval rating among blacks at 51 percent. As recently as six months ago, it was at 19 percent.

But Bush's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina -- seen by many blacks as evidence that he didn't care about them (see my September 13 column ) -- may have brought support for the president in the African American community down to nearly negligible levels.

Tim Russert called attention to this startling statistic on the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams yesterday: "Brian, listen to this," he said. "Only 2 percent -- 2 percent! -- of African-Americans approve of George Bush's handling of the presidency -- the lowest we have ever seen in that particular measure."

So this morning, I called Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, to get a better sense of the significance of the results.

"African Americans were not supporters, but I don't think that they outright detested him -- until now," Hart said. "The actions in and around Katrina persuaded African Americans that this was a president who was totally insensitive to their concerns and their needs."

Hart said he has never seen such a dramatic drop in presidential approval ratings, within any subgroup.

This latest poll included 807 people nationwide, and only 89 blacks. As a result, there is a considerable margin or error -- and the findings should not be considered definitive until or unless they are validated by other polls.

David Bositis, a senior political analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which tracks African American public opinion, told me this morning that it's clear that Bush's job approval among blacks "has taken a hit from both the ongoing things in Iraq and what happened with Katrina."

But down to 2 percent? "I doubt that it's actually 2," he said.

"But would I be surprised if it's 10 or 12? No." And 10, he said, is typically "about as low as you can go" when it comes to approval ratings.

The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, released September 13, about two weeks after Katrina hit, found Bush's job approval among blacks at 14 percent, compared to 42 percent among the general population. Exit polls showed that 11 percent of black voters voted for Bush in November 2004.

[Late Update: The Pew Research Center is just out with its latest poll, which has a larger sample, and it finds Bush's approval rating among blacks at 12 percent, down only slightly from 14 in July. Here are those results .]

:: DM1 10/14/2005 08:57:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, October 09, 2005 ::

Tom Delay

I know that some of you are wondering what my take is on that crook Tom Delay. See that's the problem with many white folks, as long as the criminal is black they keep their eyes on the prize, but if it' s a white person it takes a while for them to focus on white criminaility. Delay has always been a crook, but the arrogance of power has pushed in into the void.

:: DM1 10/09/2005 02:29:00 PM [+] ::
...

A Thought on That Fat A$$ Bill Bennett

Here is the exchange between Bennett and the caller that got him to acknowledge what he believes:

From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Notice how when talking about abortion and its affect on Social Security Bennett qualifies his statement "assuming they're all productive citizens." Now notice when he's talking about the abortion of black babies and the crime rate, he make no statement "assuming they're all criminals." Why because his mind he has already laid down the criteria when he spoke about abortion and Social Security. "Assuming they're all criminals" is the only point that is left out of his linking of the abortion of black babies and crime because that is essence what he already believes. He also says that "But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down." As far as I know there has never been a black baby who has committed a crime unless the crime that they committed is being born. To some white folks like Bennett being born black is a crime because when this black baby grows up his genetic pre-disposition for crime mainfests itself. I wonder if it truly is a black baby who is genetically criminal that Bennett should be worried about? Maybe that black baby has no genetic pre-disposition at all to commit crime. Maybe after that black baby is brought up into a world of sex, drugs, crime and violence he becomes a product of his environment. Now that Bennett has come up with the solution for the crime rate he can explain the criminal behaviour of Delay, Frist, Bush, Cheney and I doubt its because their mothers are black!

:: DM1 10/09/2005 07:28:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, October 01, 2005 ::

More Sobering News:

Retired general: Iraq invasion was ‘strategic disaster'
By EVAN LEHMANN, Sun Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The invasion of Iraq was the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history,” a retired Army general said yesterday, strengthening an effort in Congress to force an American withdrawal beginning next year.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, a Vietnam veteran, said the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists.

The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, he said, and reposition its military forces along the Afghan-Pakistani border to capture Osama bin Laden and crush al Qaeda cells.

“The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history,” said Odom, now a scholar with the Hudson Institute.

Homeward Bound, a bipartisan resolution with 60 House co-sponsors, including Lowell Rep. Marty Meehan, requests President Bush to announce plans for a draw-down by December, and begin withdrawing troops by October 2006.

The measure has not been voted on, nor has the House Republican leadership scheduled hearings. But supporters were encouraged yesterday, pointing to growing support among moderate conservatives and the public's rising dissatisfaction with the war.

Meehan, one of the first to propose a tiered exit strategy in January, when few of his Democratic colleagues dared wade into the controversial debate, pointed to “enormous progress.”

“Talking about this issue, having hearings on this issue, getting more Americans to focus on it will result in a change of policy,” Meehan told The Sun. “The generals and commanders on the field in Iraq overwhelmingly are saying we need less in terms of occupation and more Iraqis up front, and that's the only strategy I think that will result in getting American troops back home.”

:: DM1 10/01/2005 12:32:00 AM [+] ::
...

In Case You Aren't Paying Attention:

Uzbeks Stop Working With U.S. Against Terrorism

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 30, 2005; A14

After cutting off U.S. access to a key military base, Uzbekistan has also quietly terminated cooperation with Washington on counterterrorism, a move that could affect both countries' ability to deal with al Qaeda and its allies in Central Asia and neighboring Afghanistan, U.S. officials said.

The government of President Islam Karimov, one of the most authoritarian to emerge from the collapse of the Soviet Union, has made a broader strategic decision to move away from the 2002 agreement made with President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and is cooling relations with Europe as well, the officials said.

The move follows tough criticism from Washington and the European Union over Uzbekistan's crackdown on protests in May in Andijan province, where human rights and opposition groups say hundreds died. Uzbekistan has charged that terrorists initiated the violence.

As tensions deepen, Karimov is shifting his strategic alliance toward Russia and China, the officials said. In July, Tashkent banned U.S. troops and warplanes from the Karshi-Khanabad air base, which was used for counterterrorism, military and humanitarian missions.

Because of the internal Uzbek crackdown, the European Union laid the groundwork yesterday for a vote expected on Monday to impose new sanctions on Uzbekistan for failing to allow an independent international inquiry of the Andijan incidents. The measures include an embargo on arms and any equipment that could be used for internal repression, and visa restrictions for any Uzbek official linked to the violence, European diplomats said.

Senior officials from the State Department, the Pentagon and the National Security Council held three hours of talks with Karimov on Tuesday to express U.S. concern about Uzbek human rights violations and the deterioration in relations between the two countries.

"We do want to cooperate, but it has to be across the board, not just on counterterrorism and security but also to support democratic and market reforms," Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried said yesterday in a telephone interview from Kazakhstan. He called the recent Uzbek decision to cut back on counterterrorism cooperation "very disappointing."

A spokesman from the Uzbek Embassy in Washington said his nation is still cooperating with the United States but would not comment further.

The E.U. has been pressuring Washington to impose similar sanctions, but the Bush administration wants to give Karimov one last chance to renew cooperation. "The United States is going to look very closely at whether Karimov responds to our message, and, if not, we will draw conclusions," Fried said. "We're not talking about six months. My purpose was not to drag out the process."

The Bush administration has concluded that Karimov fears democracy more than terrorism, officials said. The biggest threat to his government is the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which a State Department report says has been involved in attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan and has plotted attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Central Asia. Aligned with al Qaeda, it seeks to overthrow Karimov and create an Islamic government, the report says.

The Uzbek issue is gaining more attention on Capitol Hill. Reps. William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.) and Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.) held a news conference yesterday to urge the White House to end all Pentagon payments to Tashkent and to go to the United Nations to bring the Uzbek leader to justice.

Karimov "inflicts immeasurable pain and misery on his own people and then evicts us from a strategic military facility -- and the Pentagon's idea of a penalty is the gift of millions of U.S. tax dollars," Delahunt said. The Pentagon recently agreed to pay $23 million for past use of the K-2 air base.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

:: DM1 10/01/2005 12:28:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, September 30, 2005 ::

How's Goes It In Iraq?

Well Lemmings you say you support the war and the President. Let's go to the video tape:

Decline in Iraqi Troops' Readiness CitedGenerals Tell Lawmakers They Cannot Predict When U.S. Forces Can Withdraw

By Josh White and Bradley GrahamWashington Post Staff WritersFriday, September 30, 2005; A12

The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one, top U.S. generals told Congress yesterday, adding that the security situation in Iraq is too uncertain to predict large-scale American troop withdrawals anytime soon.

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq, said there are fewer Iraqi battalions at "Level 1" readiness than there were a few months ago. Although Casey said the number of troops and overall readiness of Iraqi security forces have steadily increased in recent months, and that there has not been a "step backwards," both Republican and Democratic senators expressed deep concern that the United States is not making enough progress against a resilient insurgency.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his commanders yesterday publicly hedged their forecasts of U.S. involvement in Iraq, leaving it unclear when troops will be able to come home or how long it will take before Iraqi security forces can defend their homeland. The officials also gave somber forecasts of significant insurgent attacks in the coming weeks as Iraq faces important political milestones.

Yesterday in Iraq, three suicide attackers set off a series of car bombs in a northern, mainly Shiite town, killing at least 40 people and wounding many more. In western Iraq, a roadside bomb killed five U.S. soldiers. Sunni insurgents have said they want to disrupt the constitutional referendum next month and the elections set for December.

On Capitol Hill, Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid, who leads the U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iraqi forces are growing steadily but that it could be some time before they can take over large portions of the country. The readiness of Iraqi forces is a key element of the U.S. war strategy to gradually reduce American troops as Iraqi troops are able to effectively replace them.

"Over the past 18 months, we have built enough Iraqi capacity where we can begin talking seriously about transitioning this counterinsurgency mission to them," Casey said. Military figures show that there are about three dozen army and special police battalions rated at Level 2 or above, meaning they are taking the lead in combat as long as they have support from coalition forces.

Officials did not say specifically why two battalions are no longer rated at Level 1 and thus unable to operate on their own. They said generally readiness ratings can change for numerous reasons, such as if a commander resigns, or if more training is needed. Casey also said that the "Iraqi armed forces will not have an independent capability for some time."
In a House Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday afternoon, Rumsfeld and the commanders were pressed for specifics about when troops might withdraw. But the answers were vague, at least the ones provided in public, before members moved into a classified briefing.

"I can tell you, Congressman, it's all going to be conditions-based," Casey said in answering Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.), who had sought a "reasonable time frame" for Iraqi troops to take over security duties. "It's not going to be like throwing a switch where all of a sudden, one day, the Iraqis are in charge."

Senators bristled at the disclosure that only one of Iraq's 86 army battalions is ready to fight on its own, including rare blunt criticism from Republicans. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he believes the United States has not had enough troops to fend off insurgents permanently. McCain also chastised Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, who retires as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff today, for being overly optimistic because "things have not gone as we had planned or expected nor as we were told by you, General Myers."

Myers replied: "I don't think this committee or the American public has ever heard me say that things are going very well in Iraq. This is a hard struggle." Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she was discouraged by the lack of readiness by the Iraqi security force. She said that it "contributes to a loss of public confidence in how the war is going," and that "it doesn't feel like progress when we hear today that we have only one Iraqi battalion that is fully capable."

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said he doubts that U.S. commanders have a clear handle on the nature of the insurgency and noted that the war has been more difficult than he expected.
Defense officials and military commanders have frequently sounded upbeat since the January elections, at times predicting that significant numbers of U.S. troops might return home by next spring and declaring that the insurgency was waning. As attacks have intensified recently and as the war has become less popular in the United States, that optimism has slipped. Lawmakers have recently expressed concerns about the growing potential for civil war in Iraq.
Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the committee, said he believes that if Iraqis do not join together by the end of the year to reach a political solution that is agreeable to the minority Sunnis, the United States should consider a timetable for withdrawal. Levin said an indefinite U.S. presence could hinder Iraqi progress.

"That's not setting a date for departure at this time," he said. "That's simply conveying clearly and forcefully to the Iraqis that the presence of our forces in Iraq is not unlimited."
Asked whether the insurgency has worsened, Casey said it has not expanded geographically or numerically, "to the extent we can know that." But he noted that current "levels of violence are above norms," exceeding 500 attacks a week.

"I'll tell you that levels of violence are a lagging indicator of success," he added. "And what's really important is the fact that the Iraqis are at 98 percent registered to participate in the referendum, in the elections."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

__________________________________________________________________

So there you have it. How much incompetence are you going to tolerate? You are even more disgraceful then because if this was a democrat screwing up like this, you would have demanded that impeachment proceedings commence. You say that you support the troops and that dissent ruins morale. Well me and my buddies all went into the service in the early 1980s and I never gave much thought to what civilians said about us, specially men old enough to serve. Why should I care about the opinion of someone

:: DM1 9/30/2005 11:34:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Thursday, September 29, 2005 ::

The following comment was emailed by MostHigh:

This has been going on for quite sometime now. Bush has been appointing personnel to his administration that are charismatic and the public eats it up. The political propaganda machine in this country is very effective in how it accomplishes its agenda. Question, who's to take responsibilty for the condition of the union when the Bush administration is finished? What can you really hold Bush accountable for when his term is up? What are you going to do, say you can't run for office anymore. He's made his impact (negative of course), he's got his money. George Bush doesn't care about black people, nah, George Bush doesn't care about anyone that can't effectively push his agenda. --Posted by MostHigh to Da' Militant One's Lair at 9/26/2005 11:10:40 AM

How about that, a very good point. What to do, what to do? Any suggestions out there?

:: DM1 9/29/2005 02:39:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 ::

More on that Crook Tom Delay

So what about it? Have you finally knocked that "log" from your eye? It's not about the liberals, democrats, blacks, or anybody else. It's about you white folks who followed these crooks over the cliff. Behaviour that you would never tolate from black folk has become standard procedure for the republican party and you have enabled it. Delay, Frist, Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, they have all let you down. Isn;t time to start thinking for yourself? Is this the kind of America you want? While I have a lot of problems with conservatives I am not adverse to a person like Dick Lugar or Chuck Hagel running this country. These are decent men with character and integrity. The clowns that you are supporting are embarassing you. Isn't your support worth more? Don't you deserve politicians with true ethics and morals? Like I've admonished you before, if someone has to keep telling you how christian and moral he is, watch out! It is deeds not words that are the true measure of a human being.

:: DM1 9/28/2005 09:35:00 PM [+] ::
...

Another Taste of that Crook Tom Delay:

Memo to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC):

Either stop frontin', or change party affiliations. The country doesn't need republican-lite, it needs a viable two-party system. I am a black "liberal" republican and only want my party to get rid of the hustlers and frauds that now occupy the top levels of government. I'm for republicans like Chuck Hagel, Dick Luger, and John "Johnnie Mac" McCain. These are men of character and integrity. Yet, the likes of Ashcroft, Bush, Cheney, and Delay are running the country and running it into a ditch! You, the DLC, are not helping my party or the country as long as you don't stand up to ABCD. Like that? ABCD: A-shcroft, B-ush, C-heney, D-elay. ABCD has given you all of the ammunition you'll ever need to depose them and still you run away like scared rabbits. Is there no sanity? Are there no men of courage remaining? Well, that's why I'm here because it is way past time to turn up the heat and return this nation and it's people back to the road map of prosperity and true liberty!
:: DM1 7/11/2003 09:09:22 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 9/28/2005 09:34:00 PM [+] ::
...

A Note About That Crook Tom Delay

I wrote the following blog more than a year ago:

Messege to Kerry Supporters:

Here's a email that I sent to Mary Tarr a Kerry supporter in Maryland: Mary,It's time to take off the gloves. Kerry and Edwards need to demand debates with Bush and Cheney immediately and if they don't accept curse them for the cowards that they are. We've got troops still dying almost daily. What is Kerry waiting for? He fought in an insane war. He has an obligation to take the fight to Bush now! Also Kerry and Edwards don't need to apologize for the words of anybody that opposes Bush. Use Cheney's behavior on theSenate floor as an example. He said he was glad that he told Leahy to "F--- off." Bush is steadily lying daily. Kerry should call him on it. Look this election is going to be one of the nastiest ones on record. Let Edwards talk about domestic policies. Kerry needs to focus on Bush, hisrecord, and foreign policy. You've got Iraq getting ready to boil over. The Iraqi President is calling for NATO and the Kurds are calling for independence. If Kerry doesn't begin to engage Bush, "forcefully" then events may overwhelm his message. For each issue he debates, Kerry should release a white paper that clearly states his position and views. He is not going to please everybody. So don't try.

Also, it's time to connect that crook Delay to the Bush Administration's criminal culture. Time is of the essence. I told you, I worked in the RNC. I have been a republican for 18 years. I was raised in D.C. so I know when I am in a street fight. I have a blog:

militantone@blogspot.com use any and all information and comments with my blessing. How embarassed are we supposed get over these clowns? Haven't they disgraced us enough? Let's get this party started right!Peace,Da' Militant One
:: DM1 7/13/2004 07:28:21 PM [+] :: ...

:: DM1 9/28/2005 09:30:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, September 25, 2005 ::

Affirmative Action for White Conservative Republicans

September 24, 2005Amid Many Fights Over Qualifications, a Bush Nomination Stalls in the Senate
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM and STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 - Faced with accusations that the Bush administration is stocking the government with unqualified cronies, the Republican chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is holding up the nomination of a lawyer with little background in immigration or customs to head the law enforcement agency in charge of those issues.

Democrats have seized on the political fury that developed over the apparent lack of qualifications of Michael D. Brown, the director, and others in the Federal Emergency Management Agency who were called on to deal with the calamity caused by Hurricane Katrina. Day after day, Democratic lawmakers have begun aggressively challenging the credentials of people President Bush wants to place in midlevel government positions.
The homeland security chairwoman, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, says she now wants to inquire further into the qualifications of Julie L. Myers to be assistant secretary of homeland security for immigration and customs enforcement.

The senior Democrat on the Senate committee, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, said Friday that he was not persuaded by a confirmation hearing last week that Ms. Myers, who has worked the last four years at the White House and in several agencies, satisfied the legal requirement that the official in charge of the immigration agency have at least five years' experience in law enforcement and management.

Ms. Myers, 36, is on her honeymoon and cannot be immediately called to testify again. She has strong Republican connections and is the niece of Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before she joined the Bush administration, she was a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn.

The White House continued to express support for her Friday.
"Julie Myers is well known and respected throughout the law enforcement community, and she has a proven track record as a strong and effective manager," said Erin Healy, a presidential spokeswoman.

In addition to the questions about Ms. Myers, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan has objected to the nomination of Stewart Baker to be assistant secretary of homeland security for policy. Mr. Baker, who won committee approval despite Mr. Levin's opposition, is an accomplished technology lawyer, but he has little experience in disaster management.

At the same time, the Center for American Progress, a research institute for out-of-office Democratic policy experts, has questioned whether Andrew B. Maner is qualified for his position as chief financial officer of the Homeland Security Department, which has a budget of about $35 billion and more than 180,000 employees. Mr. Maner's main government experience before joining this administration was a job in the White House press office under the first President Bush.

The questions of credentials are not limited to homeland security. For example, the main experience of Brian D. Montgomery, who in June became assistant secretary for housing and federal housing commissioner, was performing advance work in the Bush presidential campaign of 2000 and in the current administration's first term.

Mr. Montgomery's responsibilities now include overseeing the $500 billion Federal Housing Administration insurance portfolio. His background in housing is limited to a few years as communications director of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.
People who have studied the workings of the federal government for years say this administration is no worse than President Bill Clinton's or any other recent ones in the qualifications of political appointees.

"The vast majority of appointees are good, qualified and committed, but in every administration you have people who are not up to the job," said Patricia McGinnis, president of the Council for Excellence in Government, a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization devoted to improving government performance through better management and leadership.

Paul C. Light, a political scientist at New York University, said, "In every administration, there are certain people you have to find places for: people who worked on your campaign or were contributors or are well connected with other politicians."

Clay Johnson III, who was head of the White House personnel office for the first three years of the current Bush administration and is now deputy budget director, said Mr. Bush's appointees had been "superbly qualified," in large part because the president emphasized selecting candidates who were committed to carrying out his policy objectives.

Across the government, there are more than 3,000 executive positions the president can fill without regard to Civil Service rules. They range from those of cabinet officers to personal secretaries. About 500 are subject to Senate confirmation. The trick for any president, Mr. Light said, is to fill the top jobs and those that require particular expertise with especially qualified people and then find other positions for job seekers with political or personal connections.

Certain departments and agencies tend to become dumping grounds for those with connections. "In a Republican administration," said G. Calvin Mackenzie, a government professor at Colby College, "HUD is like a witness protection program." Democrats are more likely to put their political cronies in the Commerce Department or the Small Business Administration. David E. Lewis, an assistant professor of politics at Princeton, recently published a study of 614 federal programs managed by 245 agencies. He looked at how each program was assessed under the scale the Bush administration's Office of Management and Budget uses to determine how well a program functions. Mr. Lewis found that programs run by political appointees "get systematically lower management grades than bureau chiefs drawn from the Civil Service."
One explanation for Mr. Lewis's finding may be rapid turnover. Political appointees stay on the job an average of only two years or so, then take private-sector jobs where they use the experience and contacts they have gained in the government.

In an essay she wrote shortly after leaving the White House, Constance Horner, who was director of presidential personnel for the first President Bush, said: "The job seekers continue to come in order, as they say in many variations, 'to give something back to the country' that's been good to them. They want only to serve 'this president' and no other. Alternatively (or perhaps more explicitly) they've 'paid their dues' and feel, however genteelly they put it, that they are 'owed something.' "

:: DM1 9/25/2005 07:38:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, September 24, 2005 ::

Apocalypse Now!

For all of you Bush supporters, have you had enough yet? The country is going to hell in a handbasket thanks to your support of affirmative action for white folks. Bush never has been and never was qualified to run as dog catcher let alone President of the United States. This is what happens you deny reality and vote ideology. You own the three branches of government yet the country is worse off now than it has ever been. It says a lot about your idiocy and your lack of wisdom. Isn't it time to cut your losses for the sake of the country?

:: DM1 9/24/2005 04:36:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, September 10, 2005 ::

Here's a copy of an Email that I sent to Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland:

Dear Sir,

I am very dissappointed in the democratic party. Some of the republicans have been showing their bigoted and racist spots with their rhetoric in the past two weeks since the hurricane. Who will denounce them? Who will take to the floor of Congress and stand up to these bullies and scoundrels? Has the Democratic party become so cowed that it can not defend fellow citizens who are being disparaged as well as marginalized by these disgraceful excuses for human beings? I hope that someone will tell them what they can do with their racism and bigotry. We are fighting the good fight out here, but we need all of you to stand with us.

:: DM1 9/10/2005 10:04:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 ::

Let's Move Forward

Every time Bush f*cks up his minions want folks to forget that he screwed up and move forward. No accountability, no recriminations, no fault, just move forward. The inability to hold the Dauphin accountable is amazing. The chickens have come back to the coop and are now roosting and still the Bush spawn is trying to twist reality and the facts. I wonder what their definition of being an American is? It sure isn't covering day after day for an incompetent administration which they seem to relish. Remember Bill Clinton's "wee wee"? Clinton's "wee wee" had to be punished and he was impeached. What does it take for Bush to be held accountable. He could be caught on tape admitting to a crime holding the gun with a written signed confession and still his supporters would find him guilty of nothing, but would instead praise him for his honesty and willingness to "move forward." It's worst than embarassing, it's criminal and treasonous.

:: DM1 9/06/2005 10:09:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, September 04, 2005 ::

Trent Lott never stops amazing me! I just heard a video of him with Anderson Cooper on CNN. He sounded as out of touch and specious as I remember. I reposted a blog a wrote after the Strom Thurmond fiasco. It's just a few blogs down. This was before I heard his interview. What an as*!

:: DM1 9/04/2005 11:24:00 AM [+] ::
...

Article by Frank Rich of the New York Times:

September 4, 2005
Falluja Floods the Superdome
By FRANK RICH

AS the levees cracked open and ushered hell into New Orleans on Tuesday, President Bush once again chose to fly away from Washington, not toward it, while disaster struck. We can all enumerate the many differences between a natural catastrophe and a terrorist attack. But character doesn't change: it is immutable, and it is destiny.

As always, the president's first priority, the one that sped him from Crawford toward California, was saving himself: he had to combat the flood of record-low poll numbers that was as uncontrollable as the surging of Lake Pontchartrain. It was time, therefore, for another disingenuous pep talk, in which he would exploit the cataclysm that defined his first term, 9/11, even at the price of failing to recognize the emerging fiasco likely to engulf Term 2.

After dispatching Katrina with a few sentences of sanctimonious boilerplate ("our hearts and prayers are with our fellow citizens"), he turned to his more important task. The war in Iraq is World War II. George W. Bush is F.D.R. And anyone who refuses to stay his course is soft on terrorism and guilty of a pre-9/11 "mind-set of isolation and retreat." Yet even as Mr. Bush promised "victory" (a word used nine times in this speech on Tuesday), he was standing at the totemic scene of his failure. It was along this same San Diego coastline that he declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln more than two years ago. For this return engagement, The Washington Post reported, the president's stage managers made sure he was positioned so that another hulking aircraft carrier nearby would stay off-camera, lest anyone be reminded of that premature end of "major combat operations."

This administration would like us to forget a lot, starting with the simple fact that next Sunday is the fourth anniversary of the day we were attacked by Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Even before Katrina took command of the news, Sept. 11, 2005, was destined to be a half-forgotten occasion, distorted and sullied by a grotesquely inappropriate Pentagon-sponsored country music jamboree on the Mall. But hard as it is to reflect upon so much sorrow at once, we cannot allow ourselves to forget the real history surrounding 9/11; it is the Rosetta stone for what is happening now. If we are to pull ourselves out of the disasters of Katrina and Iraq alike, we must live in the real world, not the fantasyland of the administration's faith-based propaganda. Everything connects.

Though history is supposed to occur first as tragedy, then as farce, even at this early stage we can see that tragedy is being repeated once more as tragedy. From the president's administration's inattention to threats before 9/11 to his disappearing act on the day itself to the reckless blundering in the ill-planned war of choice that was 9/11's bastard offspring, Katrina is déjà vu with a vengeance.

The president's declaration that "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees" has instantly achieved the notoriety of Condoleezza Rice's "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center." The administration's complete obliviousness to the possibilities for energy failures, food and water deprivation, and civil disorder in a major city under siege needs only the Donald Rumsfeld punch line of "Stuff happens" for a coup de grâce. How about shared sacrifice, so that this time we might get the job done right? After Mr. Bush's visit on "Good Morning America" on Thursday, Diane Sawyer reported on a postinterview conversation in which he said, "There won't have to be tax increases."

But on a second go-round, even the right isn't so easily fooled by this drill (with the reliable exception of Peggy Noonan, who found much reassurance in Mr. Bush's initial autopilot statement about the hurricane, with its laundry list of tarps and blankets). This time the fecklessness and deceit were all too familiar. They couldn't be obliterated by a bullhorn or by the inspiring initial post-9/11 national unity that bolstered the president until he betrayed it. This time the heartlessness beneath the surface of his actions was more pronounced.

You could almost see Mr. Bush's political base starting to crumble at its very epicenter, Fox News, by Thursday night. Even there it was impossible to ignore that the administration was no more successful at securing New Orleans than it had been at pacifying Falluja.
A visibly exasperated Shepard Smith, covering the story on the ground in Louisiana, went further still, tossing hand grenades of harsh reality into Bill O'Reilly's usually spin-shellacked "No Spin Zone." Among other hard facts, Mr. Smith noted "that the haves of this city, the movers and shakers of this city, evacuated the city either immediately before or immediately after the storm." What he didn't have to say, since it was visible to the entire world, was that it was the poor who were left behind to drown.

In that sense, the inequality of the suffering has not only exposed the sham of the relentless photo-ops with black schoolchildren whom the president trots out at campaign time to sell his "compassionate conservatism"; it has also positioned Katrina before a rapt late-summer audience as a replay of the sinking of the Titanic. New Orleans's first-class passengers made it safely into lifeboats; for those in steerage, it was a horrifying spectacle of every man, woman and child for himself.

THE captain in this case, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, was so oblivious to those on the lower decks that on Thursday he applauded the federal response to the still rampaging nightmare as "really exceptional." He told NPR that he had "not heard a report of thousands of people in the convention center who don't have food and water" - even though every television viewer in the country had been hearing of those 25,000 stranded refugees for at least a day. This Titanic syndrome, too, precisely echoes the post-9/11 wartime history of an administration that has rewarded the haves at home with economic goodies while leaving the have-nots to fight in Iraq without proper support in manpower or armor. Surely it's only a matter of time before Mr. Chertoff and the equally at sea FEMA director, Michael Brown (who also was among the last to hear about the convention center), are each awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom in line with past architects of lethal administration calamity like George Tenet and Paul Bremer.

On Thursday morning, the president told Diane Sawyer that he hoped "people don't play politics during this period of time." Presumably that means that the photos of him wistfully surveying the Katrina damage from Air Force One won't be sold to campaign donors as the equivalent 9/11 photos were. Maybe he'll even call off the right-wing attack machine so it won't Swift-boat the Katrina survivors who emerge to ask tough questions as it has Cindy Sheehan and those New Jersey widows who had the gall to demand a formal 9/11 inquiry.

But a president who flew from Crawford to Washington in a heartbeat to intervene in the medical case of a single patient, Terri Schiavo, has no business lecturing anyone about playing politics with tragedy. Eventually we're going to have to examine the administration's behavior before, during and after this storm as closely as its history before, during and after 9/11. We're going to have to ask if troops and matériel of all kinds could have arrived faster without the drain of national resources into a quagmire. We're going to have to ask why it took almost two days of people being without food, shelter and water for Mr. Bush to get back to Washington.
Most of all, we're going to have to face the reality that with this disaster, the administration has again increased our vulnerability to the terrorists we were supposed to be fighting after 9/11. As Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, pointed out to The Washington Post last week in talking about the fallout from the war in Iraq, there have been twice as many terrorist attacks outside Iraq in the three years after 9/11 than in the three years before. Now, thanks to Mr. Bush's variously incompetent, diffident and hubristic mismanagement of the attack by Katrina, he has sent the entire world a simple and unambiguous message: whatever the explanation, the United States is unable to fight its current war and protect homeland security at the same time.

The answers to what went wrong in Washington and on the Gulf Coast will come later, and, if the history of 9/11 is any guide, all too slowly, after the administration and its apologists erect every possible barrier to keep us from learning the truth. But as Americans dig out from Katrina and slouch toward another anniversary of Al Qaeda's strike, we have to acknowledge the full extent and urgency of our crisis. The world is more perilous than ever, and for now, to paraphrase Mr. Rumsfeld, we have no choice but to fight the war with the president we have.

:: DM1 9/04/2005 11:14:00 AM [+] ::
...

Here is a post from the News Blog: It has STRONG LANGUAGE! The blog is stark and I agree with it 100%. It was never about Bush being a republican. It was about an incompetent individual holding the highest office in the land and being thoroughly unprepared and unfit for the position. It was about the country and the need to maintain our strength, character, and what unity we had. There is another civil war happening and this time it is for the soul of America. You say that God finds favor with the country because we are a Christian nation. well God detests fake Christians more than he does sinners because they should know better. Does anyone wonder why God seemingly hasn't been answering our prayers lating? And this is for the religious folk not the non-believers because according to the folks that are trying to lead our country to the right and a theocracy are telling the rest of us to get right with God. Well we've had 9/11, Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, high gas prices, the largest deficit in history, and on and on. Maybe God is so ashamed of what you purport to do in his name that he is leaving you to your own devices. My disgust for your behavior is palpable. You are a danger to the rest of us through your blindness and slavish devotion to George W. Bush. And now the blog from the News Blog:

WE TOLD YOU SO

Ever wonder why New Yorkers detest George Bush? Because we experienced his incompetence up close and person. We knew this guy was full of sh*t, absolutely full of f*cking sh*t, after they started to play games with the funding and gave Wyoming terrorism money. We knew he was an assclown then. We thought DC 9/11 was a comedy, because the Bush we saw hid in AF One like the scared bitch that he is. But did you listen? F*ck no. Until last week, Ann Coulter was calling New Yorkers cowards for not endorsing Bush's folly in Iraq. We have been screaming for two years that Bush and his team sucked. That they had no clue. They sent soldiers to be wounded in Iraq without armored anything. And you idiots cheered him on from the safety of your keyboards. We told you he was f*cking up Iraq. But no, we supported Saddam, we were racist, we blamed America. You say this isn't about politics? F*ck you, this IS politics, real time, real life politics, where the insanity of all your ideas are exposed to the world for the fraud that they are. Tax cuts kill. Ask the relatives of the dead of the Gulf Coast. Well, motherf*ckers, the alligators are feasting on dead n*gger and there isn't an Iraqi in sight. And Bush is trying to gladhand his way through a mess which has stunned FOX reporters. I mean, Shepard Smith is calling Fox's talking heads liars ON THE AIR.

CNN rips Bush in print and online after nearly five years of sleep. Instead of hearing what we had to say about Bush, you called John Kerry a coward, mocked Max Cleland, blamed everything but herpes on Bill Clinton. You enabled Bush into this mess and now you're shocked?
Now, Fox can be outraged, now, Wash Times and Union Leader call Bush weak? Well, his coward ass disappeared in 2001. But you rather blame Michael Moore for that. He can't even explain the Iraq war to a grieving mother. So what did you do? rite the most vile things about her and her dead son. Attacked her patriotism and her honesty. Well, motherf*ckers, and that means you, fat ass Goldberg and your master, Rich Lowry, PNAC Bitch Beinart, the racist wannabe white Malkin and the little f*cktards at LGF, Bareback Andy and "Diversity" Instacracker, all you backstabbing, fag hating uncle tom ministers, you can see Dear Leader in action. America's largest port is gone, maybe forever, gas is $5+ a gallon and FEMA is coming. Whores come faster with old men than FEMA is getting to NOLA. How did your wartime President react? Like Chiang Kai-Shek when the Yellow River flooded in 1944, with corrupt indifference.

Bush, the man your fever dreams built into the next Winston Churchill when he is really the live action Chauncey Gardiner, has failed to everyone, in plain sight, without question. Rick Perry is trying to save his ass, but it ain't working. NOLA looks like ANGOLA and that ain't flying.
Say 9/11 changed everything now, motherf*ckers. Ooops, 9/11, 9/11. 9/11. Doesn't work anymore? Gee, maybe the sea of alligator MRE's once known as the citizens of New Orleans has something to do with that. Now you can shut the f*ck up about 9/11. Bush just proved what would happen with another 9/11. Dead Americans as far as the nose can smell. Drunken Chris Hitchens muttered some nonsense about blacks having it so good here. The poor man needs to stay in his bottle or go to Betty Ford before someone beats his treasonous ass stupid. Islamofascism means what, now motherf*cker? Shove Islamofascism up your well travelled ass. The most dangerous thing to average Americans is not some mullah in Iraq, not even Osama Bin Laden, but George Bush. If he doesn't get you killed in Iraq, he'll f*ck up saving your city so it turns into Escape from New Orleans. Armed junkies roaming the streets, looking for a fix, robbing and looting like Serb paramilitaries and about as sober. George Bush's ineptitude has killed far more Americans than Osama could have dreamed of. Some of you still try to see the clothes on the Dauphin, but he's as naked as Peter North around Jenna Jameson. Bush f*cked up so bad, FOX turned on him like a rabid dog. You can't hide behind racism forever. Bush f*cked up, Bush is a weak, callous leader and the world knows this like it knows few other things. And all the stolen TV's in the world cannot hide that.

posted by Steve @ 12:01:00 AM

:: DM1 9/04/2005 10:07:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, September 03, 2005 ::

Here's Another Blast from the Past

:: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 ::

Why White Conservatives Love George W. Bush

It was just yesterday that a group on whiny, self-righteous hypocrites were telling us about the failings on Bill Clinton. They were especially upset about his "lies". It's been documented on numerous occassions that Bush "lied". Examples are the Iraq/Niger/Uranium fiasco; Saddam had ties to Osama; he would change the tone of the political discourse; etc. However, those same whiny, self-righteous hypocrites are silent in their condemnation of Bush. Why? How about Bush makes white conservative feel like they did in the good old days when white reigned supreme. Why can't a democrat running for president win in the South? A democrat does not appeal to the white conservative, confederate flag-waving bigot who never did like the changes that took place in the 1960s and 1970s.

:: DM1 1/13/2004 08:17:45 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 9/03/2005 10:58:00 PM [+] ::
...

The Hits Just Keep on Coming! Another Blast from the Past

:: Saturday, July 26, 2003 ::

Memo to Republicans:

It feels like the wheels are coming off of the bus. doesn't it? You hitched your wagon to Bush and Cheney and now here you are. Let's hope we find Osama. Let's hope we find Saddam. Where are those WMDs? How about this economy? What is the answer? War and tax cuts. As you can see the combination can be devastating. Deficits where there were surpluses. Well, I've just pulled out my lucky rabbit's foot. Let's all close our eyes and hope!

:: DM1 7/26/2003 01:57:42 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 9/03/2005 10:45:00 PM [+] ::
...

And Another Blast from the Past. I said it all years ago!

Ode to the Sheep:

King George! King George! What have you done?
Our world you've torn asunder
and replaced it with a rumor of war
of cannons, of night, and thunder.

You told us that things would all turn out
You said that you had a plan
Now here we sit broke and unemployed
No jobs to lend a hand.

Cut their taxes! Go to war!
Give me your young for fodder!
For I have plans that don't include you
Shut up! Don't make it harder.

Be the sheep that I raised you to be
And fatter yourselves up well
And when I've finished my plunder and death
I'll see you all in hell!

:: DM1 7/11/2003 09:28:59 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 9/03/2005 10:42:00 PM [+] ::
...

Another Blast from the Past!

ODE TO AMERICA:

I saw a nation standing strong like an Oak in the midst of a storm,
but like a child lost in the woods things started to go wrong.
It took it's soul and blood and tears and sold them to the highest bidder
and here it sits in a smelly old hole, an outhouse some call a shi--er.

Give me liberty! Give me death!
Are words we used to admire
And now here we sit hopeless and lost
at the hands of a country squire!

:: DM1 7/11/2003 09:20:46 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 9/03/2005 10:40:00 PM [+] ::
...

Another Blast From the Past. A Prelude to Kanye West's Indictment of George W. Bush.

Saturday, December 14, 2002 ::

Memo to "Some Folks"

Look, you and I both know that you agree wholeheartedly with Trent Lott. You can't stand black folks and you never will. That's okay. Just be honest. If you think that we can tolerate you any better, you are truly deluding yourselves. Black folks can't afford to have short memories. Once someone has put his boot on your neck even if he raises the boot, you never forget him or the feeling on his boot on your neck. You can do what you want with Lott because he never had most black americans fooled. We knew what he was and what he stood for. Come to think of it so did you. And yet, you continued to vote him into office. He is your conscience. His words are yours. You know it and I know it. Admit what you believe and what you are. Just know that we will never put our guard down because we never trust you in the first place!

Da' Militant One
:: DM1 12/14/2002 10:22:29 AM [+] :: ...

:: DM1 9/03/2005 10:36:00 PM [+] ::
...

Blast from the Past! Written Three Years Ago

Memo to Bush/Cheney Supporters:

Dear Sheep,You are reaping what you sowed. Incompetence, erosion of civil liberties, economic unstability, and on and on. Keep telling yourselves that he is doing a "wonderful" job. I guess only liberals and black folk should be held to some standards. Let's see a black kid trying to get into college must be "qualified" yet you voted for a man who has never had any meaningful accomplishments save for the last name of Bush. Well he is not his father and he is wholly unqualified for the job. "Keep looking for the pony in a room full of sh-t." How many times did Bush supporters acknowledge that Al Gore was smarter. How many times were they dismissve of Gore as a "know-it-all". Was it in April that Bush was seen carrying the book "BIAS" by Bernie Goldberg. For all of his lack of knowledge about everything, he's reading "BIAS" instead of "pick any scholarly subject. Basically, with the elevation of Bush to the presidency, being mediocre, white and conservative with a famous last name, means that you squandered any credibility on what makes anybody qualified for anything. Disgraceful, yes. Surprising, no. I knew that you were frauds all the time.Da' Militant One

:: DM1 8/17/2002 07:55:10 PM [+] :: ...

:: DM1 9/03/2005 10:33:00 PM [+] ::
...

From the Village Voice

Mondo WashingtonPumping Us DryKatrina tragedy is an absolutely perfect storm for oil companies by James RidgewaySeptember 2nd, 2005 9:06 PM

The very first thing George W. Bush did in response to Hurricane Katrina was to offer a helping hand—not to the people stranded on rooftops in New Orleans, but to his friends in the oil industry. These were the same people who gave him $52 million in his last campaign. The president released millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so the oil companies would have enough fuel to make gas and keep the country going. But the companies don't need this oil. They're already swimming in it. Pouring more oil into the marketplace didn't reduce gasoline prices, which kept on going up, hitting $4 a gallon in some places.
While crude oil production doubtless was curtailed by the storm, the companies face a surplus, not a shortage, of crude oil. So why dump more on the market?

"Despite growing inventories, U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) increased by nearly 5 million barrels over the past 3 weeks," wrote the federal Energy Information Administration. Continuing in the clipped industry jargon, the agency added, "While this may not appear to be a substantial build, it comes at a time when crude oil inventories typically decline, as refiners use more crude to make gasoline needed for current demand and heating oil as they stock up for the winter." Thus, any crude oil inventory increase during the month of August, much less one of five million barrels over a three-week period, might lead one to expect prices to drop. Yet the price for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil has risen by $5 per barrel! If prices don't fall under these conditions, what will make them fall?

All over the world this summer, oilmen raced to dump surplus into the U.S. market, where the rigged prices made them a killing. Oil traders in China, the second biggest world market next to the U.S., were shoving oil into the high-priced U.S. market to make more money. (The U.S. consumes 25 percent of the world market; China 7 percent.) Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist Ed Wallace wrote last week that "there's actually weakening demand in Asia over the past two months, so oil is being diverted to the U.S., where it'll bring higher profits." He quoted Reuters as noting that "Chinese oil trader Unipec resold at least 3 million barrels of August-arriving crude due to reduced refinery demand and was offering more, traders said last week." Mary Rose Brown, a spokeswoman for Valero in San Antonio, was quoted by The Wall Street Journal as saying, "There is no reason for crude oil to be at $65 a barrel other than hype in the market."

To be sure, some oil companies face shortages because of the storm, but the release of oil from the strategic reserve may not help them much. "The Capline, a major crude oil pipeline that feeds many Midwest refineries with crude oil from the Gulf of Mexico, is currently shut down due to lack of electricity at many of its pumping stations," the EIA reported Wednesday. "As a result, one refinery in the Midwest has already reported that it has reduced its production due to a loss in crude oil supply. With the recent Government decision that crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) will be made available to those affected by the hurricane, there may be some relief for refiners that have reduced their production due to loss of crude supply," the government service dryly continues. "However, they will need to find a way to get the crude oil from the SPR to their refineries."

What is going on here? The story goes like this: Refineries are increasing their stocks of crude, yet not increasing production of gasoline. This may help explain the high prices. It is an odd situation, since usually, in the summer, refineries are operating full tilt to lay in supplies of gasoline and home heating oil. The slowing of gasoline production might be due to some unrecognized problems within the refineries. But the industry says it's because of market conditions, with officials noting that while today's crude prices are over $70, in 1999 crude oil was selling at around $12 a barrel. "Refineries lost a lot of money. In fact they lost money for most of the 1990s," Jeff Morris, president of Alon USA, owner of the Big Spring Refinery, told The Wall Street Journal last week. "People chose not to spend on refineries. So what's affecting us now is that we're behind the investment curve and it will take us five to 10 years to catch up." If the companies can't increase their refined products, they could end up turning not to the petroleum reserve but to the European Union. While the U.S. keeps a supply of crude oil in its strategic reserve, the Europeans maintain a stock of gasoline as well as crude. There has been speculation that in a really tight situation, the EU might be called on to export some of that supply to the U.S.

Meanwhile, the high gas prices are adding to the profits of the big companies. Says the watchdog group Public Citizen: "Since George Bush became president in 2001, the top five oil companies [selling gas] in the United States have recorded profits of $254 billion: ExxonMobil: $89 billion, Shell: $60.7 billion, BP: $53 billion, ChevronTexaco: $31 billion, ConocoPhillips: $20 billion." The group adds: "As Americans shell out more dollars at the pump, the profit margin by U.S. oil refiners has shot up 79% from 1999 (the year Exxon and Mobil merged) to 2004."
Bush refuses to increase the energy efficiency standards for motor vehicles, which use 70 percent of total oil production, and he recently signed the energy bill that hands out billions in new subsidies to the industry. Even he seems to recognize what a shuck this is: In April, with prices moving ever higher and the Congress debating the energy bill, Bush said, "With $55 oil, we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies."

But this summer, Congress, with the president's enthusiastic support, adopted a series of new subsidies for the oil and gas industry. "Officially, the energy bill's giveaways are supposed to cost $14.6 billion over the next 10 years, offset in part by $3.1 billion in higher gasoline taxes on consumers," says Robert S. McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice. "But that doesn't include the bill's $70 billion in authorized but unfunded subsidies, for which cash will have to be appropriated later." Now they get another handout in the form of the strategic oil reserve. This is a complicated setup whereby rather than paying the federal government (i.e., the general public) for the right to drill oil on public lands, the industry puts some of this oil into the reserve. When times get bad, it then extracts some of the 750 million barrels stored in salt domes under the Texas and Louisiana coasts-with the promise to return it later on. It can therefore get cost-free oil, turn it into gasoline and sell it at high prices, hoping to buy back crude oil later on at lower prices and return it to the reserve.

In addition, the petroleum reserve will buy oil to fill its reservoirs on the market to jack up crude prices. So the industry makes a killing both ways. The public is left shelling out $4 a gallon at the pump.

:: DM1 9/03/2005 10:28:00 PM [+] ::
...

Let them eat cake!

The following is an excerpt of an news article that describes Laura Bush's arrival. The story is by Jan Risher of The Advertiser.

Evacuees at Cajundome wait for first lady, and for lunch.

As the first lady toured the Red Cross shelter at the Cajundome this morning, a line of evacuees waiting to eat their lunch trickled out the door of the Dome. First lady Laura Bush arrived about midday to tour the shelter and meet evacuees.By 12:50 p.m., the trays of food were still covered and hungry evacuees stood in line, holding empty plates. Rice, beans and jambalaya were on the menu. About that time, volunteers began rolling the carts of food into position to serve.

:: DM1 9/03/2005 10:12:00 PM [+] ::
...

The Chickens are Home!

Kanye West said it best, "George Bush does not care about black people!" The world has seen the truth and sees not only how this government treats its less fortunate, but also how in a crisis time is not of the essence. Check out the reporting of Sheppard Smith and Geraldo Rivera on Hannity and Colmes. They know the truth and are speaking it. Bush goes back to Crawford on Wednesday. Condi Rice is seen on 5th Avenue shopping for shoes. Where is Dick Cheney? One of the worst natural disasters in American history and where was the Bush Administration, or Homeland Security? FEMA did a simulation last year and predicted a catastrophe if a Category Five hurricane hit the Gulf Coast and New Orleans was flooded. For years budgets were deferred or cut. I beieve the Head of the Army Corps of engineers stated that strengthening the levees for a Category Five hurricane was NOT COST EFFECTIVE. I wonder if the folks had been republican and white that the Head of the Corps would have come to the same conclusion. Make excuses and pass blame, but the buck stops with Bush and his incompetent cabal of idiots. Do you feel safer, now?

:: DM1 9/03/2005 07:34:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, August 28, 2005 ::

So much to talk about while I was gone. So Bush wants to stay the course. There is an old saying, " when your boat is headed for the rocks change course!" The incompetence is breath- taking. I know that the conservatives thought that the war was over when the Dauphin donned his flight suit; however, the war had not yet begun. Folks tried to tell you idiots that holding Iraq would be alot morw difficult than siezing it, but you didn't listen. You have no one to blame, but yourselves. Sixteen thousand casualties was worth this? Honor their sacrifice? How, by making the same mistakes over and over? Face it wae are now in a world of @hit and it's of your own making. Choke on it!

:: DM1 8/28/2005 11:25:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, August 27, 2005 ::

The Prodigal One has returned. Much has happened in the last seven months that I have been away, but as they say, "I'm back!" Are you useful idiots ready to concede that your support for the Dauphin was misguided. Can he screw this country up any more? Where is the "Uniter?" He's nothing more than a petulant child, a poseur, and a carnival barker who trades in lies and deceit. Look at previous posts. I told you years ago that Bush was a fraud and that attacking Iraq would be a mistake. It was a mistake because Bush and his gang are too hubristic, incompent, and arrogant. To be surprised that some Iraqis are fighting to kick us out of their country shows a lack of knowledge and discernment that has brought us to the brink of disaster. Surprise, the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds can not agree on a constitution! You think? Anyone witha grasp on reality and the facts would have known that given the chance these groups would fight each other if given a chance. Now we have almost 2,000 dead and 14,000 wounded. This does not include those troops that had to be evacuated for other health problems which number in the thousands. I told that the chickens were coming home to roost. They always do.

:: DM1 8/27/2005 06:49:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 ::

Email address is: militant.one@att.net or militantone.talk2me@blogspot.com
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 1/11/2005 10:20:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, January 09, 2005 ::

The Armstrong Williams/Bush Administration Payola Scandal

Are we to believe that Armstrong Williams was the only conservative pundit that received taxpayers' money from the Bush Administration. I believe that given its track record, the Bush Administration probably has more to answer for. So much for liberal media bias.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 1/09/2005 08:44:00 AM [+] ::
...

Email on John "The Meek" from January 2005:

just sent an email to a democratic activist and told him to relay the message that John Kerry's services are no longer required. Goes to show you that every so often even the conservatives are right. I haven't seen such cowardice since well TODAY. Kerry wasn't the only democrat that showed no backbone. All of the democrats should have stood up and protested the 2004 vote. Hey you are getting you asses kicked daily anyway! This is more than embarassing. What the republicans are doing to the democrats is boarding on assault and battery. Well let's start the purge with John the "Meek"

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 1/09/2005 08:42:00 AM [+] ::
...

Email to Joe Scarborough of Scarborough Country from December 2004:

Joe,

You are such a pompous jerk at times it's hard to watch you. I heard you call Michael Moore's assertion that the Afghanistan War was fought to enable Unocal to build a gas pipeline ridiculous. Read the February 12, 1998 Congressional Record

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIANREPUBLICS HEARING
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 12, 1998

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNOCAL CORPORATION

Maresca discusses the importance of the pipeline in detail. Though publicly Unocal pulled out of the Afghanistan pipeline project in 1998, a search of various Internet sites both domestic and international suggest that all is not what it seems. Why not do some real journalism for a change and show some intellect? Get off your knees Bush is not worth it.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 1/09/2005 08:39:00 AM [+] ::
...

Email to Fox News on Iraqi funding of insurgents from December 2004:

The problem I have with the hot air that is continually exhaled on Fox is that many accusations are made with no facts to support the assertions. A general who just finished a segment on the Iraqi insurgency, once again alluded to Iraqi benefactors living in Damascus who are funding most of the insurgency. How about some names? How about some proof? As usual allegations are made with no hard facts to support them. Give the people some hard facts and maybe they will support action against Syria. Stop the "windbaggery" and the emotionalism. Bush was warned by some folks not to invade Iraq and of course he refused to listen. So now events are spiraling out of control. Amazing what continued incompetence will accomplish.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 1/09/2005 08:38:00 AM [+] ::
...

Email to BartCop from November 2004:

Bart,

It's obvious why Bush was "Elected" this time. He makes the white racist element in America feel comfortable. All he has to do is wave his Bible and be against most of the programs that have made life a little easier for black folk. Put a few gay marriage initiatives on the ballot, give a wink and a nod to the confederate flag, and treat the blacks that you do know like house servants, these strategies will continue to help republicans until population growth makes that white racist segment of America irrelevant. Don't hold your breath!

Da' Militant One

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 1/09/2005 08:36:00 AM [+] ::
...

Email of the Dan Rather and Forged Bush Documents from November 2004:

You just had Bob Kohn on this morning who took Dan Rather and CBS to task on forged documents. He seems to think that there should be accountability on Rather's and CBS' part for presenting the forged documents as fact to the nation even though they say that they did not know that the documents were forged. Now if Dan Rather and CBS should suffer consequences, how is it that George Bush is still President? Did he supposedly unknowingly present forged documents on "Yellow Cake" from Niger to the nation in his State of the Union Address? Didn't he have to retract his statements? Where is his culpability? Where is his accountability? Why don't you bring Kohn back on and ask him if his stance also applies to Bush? I doubt it because that would mean that Kohn was consistent in his principles. Like most of your guests who take a position against left-leaning people and institution, his views are most likely myopic and situational. Of course you can bring back him back on and ask him about Bush. I know that this is a tall order and as usual you will not be up to the challenge. Let me see some of this fair and balanced nonsense your network keeps talking about. By the way Dan Rather apologized to the nation. We are still waiting on Bush.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 1/09/2005 08:35:00 AM [+] ::
...

Here's an email to Fow News about Reporter Carl Cameron from October 2004:

Gentlemen,

The only difference between Dan Rather and Carl Cameron is that Rather did not intentionally release fake documents about Bush. Now mind you the contents were probably true because Bush is who he is and he has not changed. Rather then at least had the decency to apologize publicly for his error. If he should resign then so be it. Many of the talking heads on your network have suggested just that. What about Cameron? I've been a republican since 1986 and proudly voted for George H. W. Bush in 1988. The person in the White House today is a shadow of his father. Yet, folks like Cameron have done all the can to help him get re-elected including falsifying news. Where is Cameron's apology? Your network offered a "limp fish" apology that was dubious at best. Cameron was "tired" and meant no malice? You know that that is a bald face lie. Cameron is a Bush supporter which is fine, but he has let his views merge into his reports. If it's bad for Rather it should be terminal for Cameron. This is why many view your slogan "fair and balanced" as a joke. I personally do not care if Cameron stays or goes. I will still watch your network because I do think that you have some talent and I am not referring to Hannity and O'Reilly they are just as irresponsible as Cameron. You might respond that Hannity and O'Reilly are not reporters. That is my point, reporters and pundits have merged as one. Why not truly be "fair and balanced?" For the life of me I can't understand why your station has hitched itself to the Bush Administration, they are screwing this country royally. Kerry is not the ultimate candidate, but he is change that is vitally needed. Four more yes of Bush will in all likelihood cost the republican party majority status in the Congress in 2008. Why was there no attempt to present a republican alternative to Bush? I know that it is all about politics and money, but scant attention is paid to the citizens of this country.

The Iraq situation is a perfect example. The pictures coming out of Iraq paint a nation that is facing a grim future. Bush and Cheney are playing their violins while the nation burns. What about the people of this country? Don't we deserve a Commander-in-Chief that is at least candid about war and death? The U.S. has experienced over 1,000 deaths and 7,500 wounded American soldiers in Iraq since March 2003. Shouldn't Bush level with the American people? Or should we ignore the truth and keep pushing the ball up the hill? Why not do some serious reporting that is not so much "fair and balanced" but is fundamentally true in every since of the word? Why not have Carl Cameron do an expose on the coming Iraqi elections in January and the difficulty that will result if the Kurds in the north are subjugated by the election process. The answer is not hopeful and I wish that your network and many others had taken the time to review the history of Iraq and its people. If you had then you would have been more cautious in supporting such an ill-conceived war.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 1/09/2005 08:33:00 AM [+] ::
...

Here's a sample of Da' Militant One's letters to various folk:

Letter To Michelle Malkin Sent in October 2004.

Ms. Malkin,

I saw your performance on Chris Mathews' show and it was truly dreadful. You talk a lot about the left well I worked at the RNC from 1985 to 1988 and have been a registered republican since 1986. I wanted to get that out of the way because it seems facts and logic have a way of being twisted if one has a different set of bona fides. It's one thing to recount anothers story, but it is truly scandalous to repeat distortions and lies. On Matthews' show you repeated the smear that Kerry had self-inflicted wounds and he called you on it. You tried to hide behind the premise that you were only repeating what was read in the book. In fact you appeared to suggest that what was printed was fact. Have we fallen so far that now a fact is something that is repeated over and over? The Special Forces soldier that Kerry pulled out of the water had no axe to grind. He was a republican for 30 years. He gave his account of events of that day that were fully backed and supported by official Naval documents. Since Kerry was not the only one awarded medals, did you ever stop to ask why didn't the swft boat officer who received a Bornze Star that day who is now coming out against Kerry make his accusations 35 years ago? Why did he accept a medal under false pretense? He seemed to claimed not to know the specifics of the award. I spent four years in the Army and believe me if a soldier receives a medal he knows what it is for. That the man feigned indignation about receiving the Bronze Star for what happened that day on the river with Kerry, should say much about his integrity. I also attended West Point and I know first hand about petty jealousies and the lengths that others will go to discredit another soldier. At the very least you should try to be a true journalist and not repeat assertions that have not been proven and are backed by facts, not hearsay. I see that many of your supporters have come to your defense. Their actions say more about the pitfalls of celebrity than they know. That you seemed to wallow in their support says much about you. Mathews was no ruder or shriller than either Hannity or O'Reilly, yet you tried to parse their collective actions. If you can not see the similiarites between Matthews, Hannity, and O'Reilly then you are either very naive or intellectually dishonest. Jounalistic ethics is not situational, they must remain consistent. That you always appear to argue in favor of conservative arguments indicates an unbias. Yes some or most conservative-based arguments may be correct, however, it is illogical to assume that all are factual and true. "Fair and Balanced" should be more than just a slogan.

By the way your views on the Japanes internment issue are disappointing at best. I doubt that if the American government had rounded up your family and friends to forceably place them in internment camps you would be so understanding and supportive of this type of action. One can not save democracy by destroying it. Honorable American citizens should be able to retain their rights regardless of the situation. This should be the american way and not subject to the events of the moment. The government would have been within its right to question Japanese americans along with any other americans, but to take the step of stripping them of their inalienable rights served only to shame our Constitution. I'm sorry that you missed the point.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 1/09/2005 08:30:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, December 31, 2004 ::

Another Blast from the Past

Saturday, June 21, 2003 ::

Memo to Sheep:These are the words of leading conservative republicans in the matter of presidential lies and misleading statements:Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois), “There is a visibility factor in the president's public acts, and those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for the law are hard to sweep under the rug...They reverberate, they ricochet all over the land and provide the worst possible example for our young people.” Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) “The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president's defenders…We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the president does not suffer the legal and constitutional consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing the president to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come…laws not enforced are open invitations for more serious and more criminal behavior.” Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) “It would be wrong for you to tell America's children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter.” Steve Buyer (R- Indiana) “I have also heard some senators from both sides of the aisle state publicly: I think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, to state publicly that you believe that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but for some reason you have this desire not to remove the president -- that desire, though, does not square with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate's precedents for removing federal judges for similar offenses.” Rep. Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina, Now Senator) “The president of the United States sets atop of the legal pyramid. If there's reasonable doubt about his ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land, our future would be better off if that individual is removed. And let me tell you where it all comes down to me. If you can go back and explain to your children and your constituents how you can be truthful and misleading at the same time, good luck.” Of course, the president that they were speaking of was Bill Clinton. The president that their words apply to is George Bush. Lying about sex: Number of casualties - 0. Lying about war: 190+ killed, hundreds wounded and counting. Who are you going to believe Bush, or your own lying eyes?::

Da' Militant 1 6/21/2003 01:41:35 PM [+] :: ...

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 12/31/2004 06:48:00 AM [+] ::
...

What does it take?

After arguing that C+ Augustus was getting a bum rap by not commenting on the Tsunami disaster, the right wing is now pointing fingers at Kofi Annan for staying on a ski vacation instead of heading back to the UN. What Kofi Annan did or did not do in no way absolves the "village idiot" from his failure to show leadership. The standing U.S. pledge in $35 million for Tsunami relief. Bush's inauguration costs $40 million. Does anybody see anything wrong with this picture. I know Bill Clinton only wishes that Monica did to him what the right wing is doing to Bush.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 12/31/2004 06:32:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 ::

Hillbilly Armor
Soldiers Must Rely on 'Hillbilly Armor' for Protection

Updated 10:34 PM ET December 8, 2004

They call it "hillbilly armor" -- U.S. military vehicles protected with scrap metal salvaged from landfills. And now U.S. soldiers want to know how long they will have to scavenge for junk to protect themselves in combat.
At Camp Buerhing in Kuwait, a Tennessee Army National Guardsman with the 278th Regimental Combat Team put the question directly to visiting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" asked Spc. Thomas Wilson of Ringgold, Ga. His question was met with shouts of approval and applause from the estimated 2,300 soldiers who had gathered to see Rumsfeld.
"It isn't a matter of money, it isn't a matter on part of the Army of desire," Rumsfeld responded. "It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, you go to war with the Army you have."
Soldiers say trucks and transport vehicles that lack sufficient armor leave them vulnerable for attack.
"What we basically have is what we call hillbilly steel, hillbilly armor," said Col. John Zimmermann, a senior officer with the Tennessee National Guard. "It's real frustrating for these soldiers."

Zimmermann said 95 percent of the unit's 300 trucks do not have appropriate covering. In October, Army reservists refused an order to deliver fuel in Iraq, saying their vehicles were unsafe. Army Spc. Blaze Crook, a 24-year-old college student who will be heading into Iraq within days, was taken aback when he saw the condition of the vehicle that will take him there. "It's got huge windows on the front of my truck," he said. "It's basically like a window of opportunity to get shot, or shrapnel or anything like that to come through. It just doesn't make me feel good that I'm riding up there without the proper armor." Rumsfeld said soldiers can still be injured even in armored vehicles, but he said the Army is doing the best they can to protect them.
Improvised Armor In the meantime, the Marines of Fox 2/5 Company have learned to improvise, using scrap metal to shore up their transport trucks in Iraq. "One of the main problems [soldiers] have is exposure from the shoulder up, and that is one of the main reasons they came over to us and asked us to raise their sides and high-backs," said Kurt Hendler, a reservist serving with the Seabees, the Navy's construction force.
Hendler and his welding partner, Joe Parrot, are customizing the standard equipped personnel trucks with new steel doors, higher sides and deflecting roofs -- all fashioned from steel plates intended for road repairs in Iraq.

"We cover up the doors and put on some three-inch plate to protect the passenger and driver's side from IED [improvised explosive device] attacks, sniper fire and any other small-arms fire," Hendler said.
This makeshift armor ended up saving the life of a crew whose vehicle took a direct hit from a rocket-propelled grenade. They say it will take 2 ½ months to get a new door to replace the one that was damaged. While the Pentagon works on supplying troops with more armored vehicles, replacement parts, and modification kits to combat units in the field, similar improvising is springing up in bases throughout Iraq. It has become a matter of life and death.
ABC News' Martha Raddatz in Kuwait and Mike Cerre in Iraq filed this report for "World News Tonight."

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 12/08/2004 10:43:00 PM [+] ::
...

From the Associated Press

A Daily Look at U.S. Iraq Military Deaths
By The Associated Press

As of Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2004, at least 1,280 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq (news - web sites) war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1001 died as a result of hostile action, the Defense Department said. The figures include three military civilians.

The AP count is four higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated at 10 a.m. EST Wednesday. The British military has reported 74 deaths; Italy, 19; Poland, 13; Spain, 11; Ukraine, nine; Bulgaria, seven; Slovakia, three; Estonia, Thailand and the Netherlands, two each; and Denmark, El Salvador (news - web sites), Hungary and Latvia one death each.
Since May 1, 2003, when President Bush (news - web sites) declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 1,142 U.S. military members have died, according to AP's count. That includes at least 892 deaths resulting from hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 12/08/2004 10:37:00 PM [+] ::
...

Donald Rumsfeld Revisited

I gave him a break after prisoner torture fiasco and now he pretty much has told the troops who are going to Iraq that they are expected to go regardless if they are properly protected or not. What arrogance and callousness. Time to go. U.S. killed and wounded amount toat least 10,000. How do we lose more men and women AFTER major combat operations are declared over? My white conservative friends have a hundred and one excuses, but in reality they are trying to rationalize their vote for an administration that is one of the most incompetent in U.S. history. I hope you all remain bothered by your consciences for the next four years. Of course Kerry was a "reed in the wind," but he was also a fresh start and that is what we as a country need. It should be about all of us not just you. While I voted for Kerry, I was concerned that he was too much of a stateman and while there is a time to fight, the fight must first be preceeded by a proper amount of discernment. That quality is sorely lacking from this administration. We are all up the creek now. May I borrow a paddle?

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 12/08/2004 10:17:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 ::

No Title

I just want to rant a little bit. For those of you who voted for Bush, I sure hope that you get what you deserve. Granted John Kerry was as resolute as a reed in a strong wind, he at least may have staunched the flow. Instead you folks reward Bush who has gotten us into this mess. We're saver because we haven't been attacked since 9/11. Bush can protect us. Bush had been president for eight months when the towers fell. He had eight months to do something. What one concrete step did he take? As far as not being attacked in the past three years, does Osama really have to attack us again. Just the specter of what he might do is causing us incalculable damage. What is Bush doing? We now have over 10,000 casualities in Iraq. For what? These people will never give in to us and you can bet that whoever is elected in January will not have the support of a significant number of Iraqis. It is truly amazing that you folks are allowing this slaughter to take place. Like I said no title just a little rant.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 11/24/2004 11:16:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, November 06, 2004 ::

Voter Fraud in Ohio

Too bad that John Kerry turned out not to be much of a fighter. There is a good reason why he shouldn't have conceded the election. Check this out on today's Drudge Report:
Ohio Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Votes
Nov 5, 7:34 PM (ET)By JOHN McCARTHY
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, elections officials said.

Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush's total should have been recorded as 365.

Bush won the state by more than 136,000 votes, according to unofficial results, and Kerry conceded the election on Wednesday after saying that 155,000 provisional ballots yet to be counted in Ohio would not change the result.

Deducting the erroneous Bush votes from his total could not change the election's outcome, and there were no signs of other errors in Ohio's electronic machines, said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell.

Franklin is the only Ohio county to use Danaher Controls Inc.'s ELECTronic 1242, an older-style touch-screen voting system. Danaher did not immediately return a message for comment.
Sean Greene, research director with the nonpartisan Election Reform Information Project, said that while the glitch appeared minor "that could change if more of these stories start coming out."

In one North Carolina county, more than 4,500 votes were lost in Tuesday's election because officials mistakenly believed a computer that stored ballots electronically could hold more data than it did.

And in San Francisco, a voting software malfunction could delay efforts to declare the winners of four county supervisor races.

In the Gahanna precinct, multiple copies of each ballot were recorded: two on the machine and three to a removable cartridge, said Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections. When voting ends, each cartridge is taken to one of five zones in the county, where the results were loaded into a laptop. Those results were transferred by secure data lines to the county.

Damschroder said the malfunction occurred when one machine's cartridge was plugged into a laptop computer and generated faulty numbers in several races. He could not explain how the malfunction occurred. He had, however, ruled out a problem with software at the central vote collection office, as well as tampering.

"We tested if there was some possibility of human intervention and it was not possible," Damschroder said.

Kimball Brace, president of the consulting firm Election Data Services, said it's possible the fault lies with the software that tallies the votes from individual cartridges rather than the machines or the cartridges themselves.

Either way, he said, such tallying software ought to have a way to ensure that the totals don't exceed the number of voters.

Damschroder said people who had seen poll results on the election board's Web site called to point out the discrepancy. The error would have been discovered when the official count for the election is performed later this month, he said.

The reader also recorded zero votes in a county commissioner race on the machine.
Other electronic machines used in Ohio do not use the type of computer cartridge involved in the error, state officials say.

But in Perry County, a punch-card system reported about 75 more votes than there are voters in one precinct. Workers tried to cancel the count when the tabulator broke down midway through, but the machine instead double-counted an unknown number in the first batch. The mistake will be corrected, officials say.

Meanwhile, in San Francisco, a glitch occurred with software designed by Election Systems & Software Inc. for the city's new "ranked-choice voting," in which voters list their top three choices for municipal offices. If no candidate gets a majority of first-place votes, voters' second and third-place preferences are then distributed among candidates who weren't eliminated in the first round.

When the San Francisco Department of Elections tried a test run Wednesday, some of the votes didn't get counted. The problem was attributed to a programming glitch that limited how much data could be accepted, a threshold that did not account for high voter turnout.

In New York, voting machine problems surfaced in a contested state Senate race. Elections officials disclosed in court that seals were missing or broken on 22 impounded voting machines.
Lawyers for both Republican and Democratic candidates said when a recount begins Monday, the machines' tally will be compared to written records logged Tuesday night. Differences could indicate tampering, they said, and the judge would have to decide how to count the vote.
The unofficial count has incumbent Republican Sen. Nicholas Spano ahead by 1,674 votes over Democrat Andrea Stewart-Cousins.

Somebody ought to get locked up. Thousands of phantom votes and the republicans were accusing the democrats of vote fraud. Let the investigations begin!

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 11/06/2004 08:08:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, October 29, 2004 ::

Revisting the Iraq War Vote

My blogs have been sparse recently. I have had to take a break from the political season because this year has been too surreal. Bush likes to say that everybody had the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion on Iraq. He uses Congress' vote authorizing him to use military force against Iraq if necessary as a linch pin in his defense. The Senate vote to authorize Bush to use military force against Iraq if necessary was 77-23. The House voted 296 to 133 to give Bush auhtorization. In other words, 156 out of 535 congressmen and women voted against giving Bush the authorization. Why? Here is an article from the New york Times describing the House and Senate votes:

Senate Passes Iraq Resolution 77 to 23

Alison Mitchell and Carl Hulse New York Times October 11, 2002The Senate voted overwhelmingly early this morning to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq, joining with the House in giving him a broad mandate to act against Saddam Hussein.
WASHINGTON, Friday, Oct. 11 — The Senate voted overwhelmingly early this morning to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq, joining with the House in giving him a broad mandate to act against Saddam Hussein. The hard-won victory for Mr. Bush came little more than a month after many lawmakers of both parties returned to Washington from summer recess expressing grave doubts about a rush to war. It reflected weeks of lobbying and briefings by the administration that culminated with a speech by the president on Monday night.
The Republican-controlled House voted 296 to 133 Thursday afternoon to allow the president to use the military "against the continuing threat" posed by the Iraqi regime. The Democratic-run Senate followed at 1:15 a.m. today with a vote of 77 to 23 for the measure.

After the House voted, President Bush said the support showed that "the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally." He added, "The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end." While the votes in favor of the resolutions were large and bipartisan, they highlighted a sharp split in the Democratic party over how and when to use force. This was particularly true in the House. Even though Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the House minority leader, put his weight behind the force authorization, more House Democrats voted against the resolution sought by the president than for it, splitting 126 to 81. Only 6 Republicans opposed it.

The opponents cited a host of reasons for their vote, including doubts that Iraq would imminently develop nuclear potential, fears that military action would take away from the war on terrorism, and sentiment against war among constituents.

In the Senate, as the debate stretched on, some prominent Democrats announced they would support the president, including Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who had proposed a more restrictive resolution and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who called the vote "probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make." Mrs. Clinton said she had concluded that bipartisan support would make the president's success at the United Nations "more likely and, therefore, war less likely."

Other Democrats, like Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, were determined to vote against the measure, saying there were still many questions about how a war would be waged, what its costs would be and how long it would last. "We have very little understanding about the full implications in terms of an exit strategy," Mr. Kennedy told reporters.

In the end, the Senate Democrats split, with 29 for and 21 against the measure. One Republican and one independent opposed it. Most Republicans stood behind the president, including Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the majority leader, who had been one of the Republicans skeptical about the president's Iraq policy. Despite his differences with Mr. Bush on the issue, Mr. Armey closed the House debate with a plea for authorizing force. Mr. Armey, 62, who is retiring at the end of this session, cried as he spoke of the troops who might be sent to war.
"Mr. President," he said, "we trust to you the best we have to give. Use them well so they can come home and say to our grandchildren, 'Sleep soundly, my baby.' " He choked up and walked out of the House chamber.

The Senate was also on track to approve the use of force. It voted 75 to 25 to cut off the delaying tactics of Democratic dissidents who had been trying to force the chamber to hold a far lengthier and more deliberative debate. With that vote, final passage was assured. It was just a matter of when, as the Senate defeated a handful of Democratic amendments. Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader, gave Mr. Bush his backing, saying, "I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

He alone among the four senior Congressional leaders had not signed off on the final wording when a compromise on using force was struck at the White House a week ago.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So at least 25% of Congress had misgivings about Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people marched through the streets of nation prior to the war. With this in mind where was the due diligence on Iraq? You had folks begging Bush not to rush into the war, to think the situation through. But alas, that was too much to ask. Now we are paying for Bush's foolishness in treasure and blood.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 10/29/2004 03:11:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, September 19, 2004 ::

The Liar

It's been a while since I posted anything. I've been busy. Anyway, George Bush now says that he complied with all orders and that is why he received an honorable discharge. The record shows that he did not take a required physical and was suspended from flying. What a liar. If some of you sheep are still willing to vote for him by all means be stupid!
Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 9/19/2004 01:13:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, August 13, 2004 ::

John Kerry "Liar"

John Kerry has for years insisted that he was in Cambodia during the Christmas of 1968. Well he LIED. He was in Cambodia in ... January 1969! Boy is he a liar! See he wasn't in Cambodia risking hi life at Christmas 1968, he was risking his life in January 1969. What a liar! Here is an except from the Drudge Report:

TOUR OF DUTY author and John Kerry historian Doug Brinkley is rushing a piece for the NEW YORKER: to set-the-record-straight on Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia tale, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. Kerry has turned to author Brinkley for a "modification" after it was exposed that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968, as he once claimed from the Senate floor. The Brinkley piece for the NEW YORKER will now say that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas, but rather in January, publishing sources tell DRUDGE. MORE Since the early 1970s, Kerry has spoken and written of how he was illegally ordered to enter Cambodia. Kerry mentioned it in the floor of the Senate in 1986 when he charged that President Reagan’s actions in Central America were leading the U.S. in another Vietnam. Here’s what he said as excerpted from the new book, UNFIT FOR COMMAND: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me." John O’Neil’s, author of UNFIT FOR COMMAND, comments on the “clarification:”“John Kerry describes Christmas Eve in Cambodia as a critical turning point in his life. We now know that his story is completely false. My question is how many people do you know have invented a turning point, one that is seared in his memory? While it makes sense for John Kerry to come clean about the Cambodia story, it is one of several tales that the Kerry campaign will have to face and clarify.”“By claiming we were engaged in a war crime and crossing international borders, John Kerry damaged the credibility of all the commanding officers above him and insulted the sailors who served with him,” said John O’Neill, member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.”

As you can see much is being made of John Kerry's recollections of the Vietnam War. I wonder what George W. Bush's memories are?

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 8/13/2004 11:06:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, August 07, 2004 ::

Racism and the Republican Party

I know that many of you have taken offense to me interjecting race in many of many recent posts. Here's why:

Unabashed Racist Wins GOP Primary in Tenn.WOODY BAIRDAssociated Press

MEMPHIS, Tenn. - An unabashed racist will represent the Republican party in the November election for a congressional seat after a write-in candidate failed to derail his effort.
With 86 percent of the primary vote counted Thursday, write-in candidate Dennis Bertrand had just 1,554 votes compared to 7,671, or 83 percent, for James L. Hart, a believer in the discredited, phony science of eugenics.
In November, the GOP candidate will oppose Rep. John Tanner, a Democrat who has represented the northwest Tennessee district for 15 years.
Hart, 60, vows if elected to work toward keeping "less favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States. In campaign literature, Hart contends that "poverty genes" threaten to turn the United States into "one big Detroit."
"I didn't expect to win," Hart said. "I thought their network would beat my ideas."
He has run for the 8th District seat before and drawn little attention. But people began to notice this time because he was the only Republican on the ballot.
Since the deadline for getting on the ballot had passed, Bertrand, also a Republican, began a write-in campaign, saying he wanted to protect the party's honor.
"I think his beliefs are not beliefs of any party that I know of," Bertrand said Thursday night. "I knew it was going to be a really long shot, but in good conscience, I had to at least give it an attempt."
Bertrand, a financial analyst and former military officer, was on active duty with the National Guard when the deadline to get on the primary ballot passed.
Hart said he will have lots of time to campaign for the general election since he was forced Wednesday to resign from his job as a real estate salesman because of the attention he drew during the primary.
"They didn't say 'You're fired' in exactly those words, but it was pretty clear what they wanted," Hart said.
While campaigning, Hart sometimes wears a protective vest and carries a .40-caliber pistol, but he said he has run into no trouble.
"When I knock on a door and say white children deserve the same rights as everybody else, the enthusiastic response is truly amazing," he said.
If a black person opens the door, he says he simply drops off campaign literature and leaves.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Perfect example of what I've been saying and that's why black folk don't vote republican.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 8/07/2004 06:50:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 ::

Al Sharpton Tonight at the Democratic Convention

Whiter than white Howard Fineman threw a fit tonight because of Al Sharpton. That Fineman is a reporter and should only be reporting the news is another story. His running commentary deserves to be responded to and that tonight is my job. Understand that black folks are always going to speak their minds and it doesn't matter that white America agrees or disagrees. I don't notice that white America ever looks to black America and says "What do you think?" Al Sharpton is a flawed human being who has definitely made several serious errors in judgement over the course of his life. That however in no way negates the truth that he spoke tonight. While I am still holding on to my republican voting card, I do not trust the current group of white extremist conservative republican politicians, nor would I ever consider them my fellow Americans. For black folks, it not what you say, it's what you do when it comes to dealing with us. The current republican party caters to the benign racist tendencies of many whites. Now this doesn't mean that every white who harbors these feelings is a klansman, but with their world perspective they can not accept that black folks are their equals. Listening to Howard Fineman tonight, brought back many memories of when I was a kid and black folks points of view where ridiculed and dismissed out of hand. Well Howie those days are over. Al Sharpton did nothing more than tell the truth tonight. You can call it hate speech or whatever suits your fancy, but it was honest and forthright. Well, Howie you can expect more of the same in years to come. Amos 'n Andy and dead and buried.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 7/28/2004 08:57:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Monday, July 26, 2004 ::

Al Gore tonight at the Democratic Convention

Gone was the angry man. Replaced was the almost pathological anger. Both replaced with a well reasoned and persuasive message on why C+ Augustus should be vanquished. Al Gore has set the standard for the convention and I hope all take heed. No need to be wild-eyed and frothing, just state the facts. If the sheep still vote for Bush this November then they deserve to be slaughtered. Al Gore stated the case with eloquence and dignity. Better to remain above the fray and maintain one's sanity. The Big Dog is going to speak later tonight and the country will once again see the difference between a true president and a frat boy who thinks he hit a triple from third base.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 7/26/2004 08:59:00 PM [+] ::
...

The 9/11 Commission

I haven't yet spoke about the findings of the 9/11 Commission. For one, I think it's a whitewash and two, the report was geared not to blame "C+ Augustus." (I heard someone refer to Bush as such and the name fits.) Bush had eight months to do all the thinngs that Clinton did not. Tighten airport security, declare war on Bin Laden, and crack down on illegal immigration. He did none of these and I guess personal accountability is only reserved for white liberals, blacks, and Latinos. That the Commission said that we are still woefully unprepared says it all about the farce that is C+ Augustus and his legions.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 7/26/2004 08:53:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, July 25, 2004 ::

The Democratice Convention

Alright, sports fans the games are about to begin. This is John Kerry's moment in the sun. He will either sink or swim this week. He at least needs to stay afloat. My advice to Kerry is to accept the nomination give a short "can do" speech and get the hell off the stage. The democrats strongest point is its diversity which is also its weakest point. White conservative America is most frightened by seeing a bunch of minorities (blacks and latinos) running around with clout. Many of them feel that what's good for minorities is bad for them. This is because white politicians constantly remind them of this. The key to the success of the democratic convention is to be vocal, but responsible in its message. No name calling and no lunatics at the podium. Joh Kerry has a tall order to fill let's hope that he is up to the challenge.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 7/25/2004 12:24:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, July 23, 2004 ::

"Poor" Sandy Berger

What an idiot! Of course the Bush Administration leaked word about the criminal investigation of Berger. That's their nature. That's what they do. However, none of that absolves Berger of anything. If he should be prosecuted then prosecute him. Now if Berger is indicted and tried, I expect to see the same action taken toward the two "senior" administration officials that outed Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. See, to have credibility you have to be consistent and Berger should not receive any preferential treatment.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 7/23/2004 08:37:00 AM [+] ::
...

The "Peace" President?

This is a excerpt from George W. Bush's interview with Tim Russert on Meet The Press in February of this year:

Russert: Shouldn't the American people have the benefit of the commission before the election?

President Bush: Well, the reason why we gave it time is because we didn't want it to be hurried. This is a strategic look, kind of a big-picture look about the intelligence-gathering capacities of the United States of America, whether it be the capacity to gather intelligence in North Korea or how we've used our intelligence to, for example, learn more information about A.Q. Khan. And it's important that this investigation take its time.

Now, look, we are in a political season. I fully understand people — He's trying to avoid responsibility. There is going to be ample time for the American people to assess whether or not I made a — good calls, whether or not I used good judgment, whether or not I made the right decision in removing Saddam Hussein from power, and I look forward to that debate, and I look forward to talking to the American people about why I made the decisions I made.

The commission I set up, Tim, is one that will help future presidents understand how best to fight the war on terror, and it's an important part of the kind of lessons learned in Iraq and lessons learned in Afghanistan prior to us going in, lessons learned that we can apply to both Iran and North Korea because we still have a dangerous world. And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where I'm coming from to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't.

I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.
_____________________________________________________________

Now listen to George Bush today from Reuters:

By Adam Entous
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (Reuters) - After launching two wars, President Bush said on Tuesday he wanted to be a "peace president" and took swipes at his Democratic rivals for being lawyers and weak on defense.
With polls showing public support for the war in Iraq in decline, Bush cast himself as a reluctant warrior and assured Americans they were "safer" as he campaigned in the battleground states of Iowa and Missouri against Democrat John Kerry and his running mate, former trial lawyer John Edwards.

"The enemy declared war on us," Bush told a re-election rally in Cedar Rapids. "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president... The next four years will be peaceful years." Bush used the words "peace" or "peaceful" a total of 20 times.

Bush has called himself a "war president" in leading the United States in a battle against terrorism brought about by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America. "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," he said in February.
_____________________________________________________________

So there you have it. And he calls John Kerry a "flip-flopper." What an absolute disgrace. Talk about saying ANYTHING to get elected! Once again sheep, this is why you do not vote for ordinary Americans with ordinary intelligence. They don't do well is critical situations. That's why you should vote for someone who actually learned something is school. For Bush to have an undergraduate degree from Yale and a MBA from Harvard, he is woefully inept. Makes you wonder about the "affirmative action" program they have for the children of the rich, the powerful , and the white. Bush is now in free fall and is sinking fast. The country has been on edge almost from the day that he took office. Remember that before 9/11, his ratings were in the toilet. It took Bush less than two years to squander the goodwill of the country and the world. Soldiers and Marines are still dying in Iraq at the rate of two a day. Deaths are 900+ and total casuslties are 6,000+, Medical evacuations are 20,000+. And Bush is a "peace" president?

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 7/23/2004 08:16:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 ::

The Village Idiot Part Deux

So the Dauphin thinks that it was a good idea to invade Iraq despite the lack of WMDs because the world is better off without Saddam. White hard-right conservatives you are embarassing yourselves supporting this village idiot. Most of you admitted that Al Gore was the smarter candidate and was more conversant on the issues. I remember Bush being interviewed on ABC before the election. He damn near agreed with every position of the Clinton Administration. Cokie Roberts pronounced that Bush had passed the foreign policy test. What an absolute farce! It seems that having to be the best qualified on applies to black folk. You say that the economy is coming back. Well sometimes broken legs heal, but they don't heal right. Check out the jobs that are being created against those being lost. Use you brains for once. You beat everyone else over the head constantly with your perceived moral superiority. Yet, you engage in the most perverse type of morality by supporting someone that has reduced the country to a pariah. And about that supposed colition in Iraq. Find out how much money and other goodies most of those pee-wee countries got for joining us.

I will be hammering white hard-right conservatives from here on out. In 1960 there were 4 million KKK members. What ever happened to them? Look in the republican party. They and their offspring populate and embrace the neo-confederate culture as if harking back to the "good old days." You beliefs have been emotionally and racially driven from day one. As long as Condi and Colin stay in line you will adore them. If they deviate from your ideal than you will scorn them. Your agenda is narrow, self-centered, and truly vapid. You point to the southern democrats to show that the democrats were the ones against civil rights. Well Bush is a republican and so am I and we have nothing in common. I gave him his props for his handling of the aftermath of 9/11. Yeah, I know what Michael Moore says, but Lincoln didn't become "the Great Emancipator" until he faced a crisis. Remember the Civil War? After the war want did Lincoln do? He tried to heal the country. Contrast that to Bush. Bush had a 90% approval rating. He squandered his greatness by being petty, vicious, and arrogant. You can continue to prop him up, but he will continue to follow his nature. It is all he can do.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 7/13/2004 07:47:00 PM [+] ::
...

Gay Marriage

I am not against gay marriage. Quite frankly as a christian marriage to me is between a man and a woman. As a christian gay marriage is not my thing. That I try to walk a half way decent path to God means that I don't have to spend a lot of energy trying to stop folks of the same sex who love each other from getting "married". It's not a "christian" marriage so why should I be upset? I don't care what they call the union or if it's performed in a church. My God through his word says that it is unholy. That is enough for me. Now should I expend all kind of energy fighting that which I know has no bearing on me or my faith. What are we going to do? Make gay marriage illegal? On what basis? The divorce rate is nearly 50% in the country. There's a whole lot of heterosexuals that are denigating the institution of marriage. Now I don't now what God's ultimate judgement will be on gay people, but I have gay relatives and friends that I love dearly and want them to be happy in life. I may not personnally approve based on my beliefs, but if it makes folks more committed, productive and positive as people why not let gay folks enjoy the same rights as straight folks? I know that marriage in my eyes is between a man and a woman so let the gay folks have their day. Riddle me this. What is more destructive to our children, two gay men that want to marry, or a 50% percent divorce rate?

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 7/13/2004 07:33:00 PM [+] ::
...

Messege to Kerry Supporters

Here's a email that I sent to Mary Tarr a Kerry supporter in Maryland:

Mary,

It's time to take off the gloves. Kerry and Edwards need to demand debates witrh Bush and Cheney immediately and if they don't accept curse them for the cowards that they are. We've got troops still dying almost daily. What
is Kerry waiting for? He fought in an insane war. He has an obligation to take the fight to Bush now! Also Kerry and Edwards don't need to apologize for the words of anybody that opposes Bush. Use Cheney's behavior on the
Senate floor as an example. He said he was glad that he told Leahy to "F--- off." Bush is steadily lying daily. Kerry should call him on it. Look this election is going to be one of the nastiest ones on record. Let Edwards talk about domestic policies. Kerry needs to focus on Bush, his
record, and foreign policy. You've got Iraq getting ready to boil over. The Iraqi President is calling for NATO and the Kurds are calling for independence. If Kerry doesn't begin to engage Bush, "forcefully" then events may overwhelm his message. For each issue he debates, Kerry should release a white paper that clearly states his position and views. He is not going to please everybody. So don't try. Also, it's time to connect that crook Delay to the Bush Administration's criminal culture. Time is of the essence. I told you, I worked in the RNC. I have been a republican for 18 years. I was raised in D.C. so I know when I am in a street fight. I have a blog: militantone@blogspot.com use any and all information and comments with my blessing. How embarassed are we supposed get over these clowns? Haven't they disgraced us enough? Let's get this party started right!

Peace,

Da' Militant One

:: DM1 7/13/2004 07:28:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, July 10, 2004 ::

The Flip Wilson Show

I just finished watching the Flip Wilson Show. Flip did a skit with the Supremes and a duet with Bing Crosby. Those of you who are under 30 probably don't know about Flip Wilson. Flip Wilson was a talented comedian and entertainer and his show was very successful. If I remember it ran from 1968 to 1974 and I watched it every Thursday night. They just don't make them like that anymore. He could be funny without cursing and tell a story that would keep you laughing. Flip died a few years ago, but if you watch his show it's like he never left.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 7/10/2004 05:20:00 PM [+] ::
...

Phony Christians of the Conservative Right

Today's Washington Post has an article on page A3 which notes that at least some of George W. Bush's payroll records were destroyed in 1996 and 1997. A Pentagon Spokesman says that he is unable to provide complete copies of Bush's payroll records because of "inadvertent destruction of microfilm containing certain National Guard payroll records." What a surprise! White Conservative America, you spent eight years telling us that Bill Clinton was the devil, a liar, a crook, and generally a despicable human being. Yet you continue to support a liar, a crook, and a generally despicable human being. Yes, I am speaking of George W. Bush. Your continued support of this person is amazing because most of you profess to be Christians and hold dear the Ten Commandments. Why don't hold Bush to these standards. The flap over Bush's Guard service is a perfect example. He knows that he didn't serve all of his time because if he did the information would have come out long ago. How convenient that his records were "destroyed" accidentally. Does anybody with a kernel of honesty in their body actually believe that? Yet white conservatives go around strutting with a fake moral authority.

The devil also invokes God's name and we know where he is coming from. Where is Jesus in your lives that you can see so clearly the "log" in Clinton's eye, but not the "Redwood" in your own. The devil's goal is to bring death and destruction to whatever he touches. Compare Clinton's eight years to Bush's four years. Clinton for all of his faults at least tried to reconcile and reach out to his enemies. That is my opinion is Jesus-like. This doesn't mean that you get walked over, but at least you try. Bush on the other hand has alienated at least three quarters of the world against the U.S. Where is his Jesus-like behavior? I have yet to see it. Folks are mad about Michael Moore's movie "Farenheit 9/11" saying that it is full of lies and distortions. Well the footage I've seen of Bush doesn't appear to be doctored in any way. Basically, it's an ass acting like an ass. That such an unworthy lout is allowed to debase this country says a lot about the phony christians that populate the republican party. Clinton may have been an unworthy lout, but at least nothing was handed to him. Clinton didn't have a rich daddy with friends to clean up his messes and he was held accountable for his behavior. Remember the impeachment? What about Bush? You spent eight years on Clinton's weapon of mass destruction (his genitals), yet, with Bush, you provide him the "full Monica" daily. It's time now to put away your presidential kneepads for the good of the country and the world.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 7/10/2004 07:49:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, June 06, 2004 ::

Ronald Reagan

The "Gipper" is dead. While I thought many of his policies were wrongheaded, at this moment I would trade "The Gip" for the current occupant. Reagan was an eternal optimist and at least made you feel hopeful about the future. On the Fox News Channel yesterday the clones took great pains to compare George W. to Reagan. How disgraceful. As presidents go the Dauphin can't hold the Gipper's jock. Reagan defeated Communism with out a shot or nuclear weapon being fired. Now I know some folks dispute his legacy, but you have to give credit where credit is due. After 9/11 the country rallied around Bush and instead of being like Reagan and raising people's spirits, Bush took that good will and squandered it. No he is definitely no Ronald Wilson Reagan. Reagan was a man unto himself. I've got a Ronald Reagan memory myself. Back in the 1980s, I worked for the Republican National Committee. One day someone came into my office and said that they were looking for volunteers to see Reagan off on some trip. Well I jumped at the chance. After all how many times in one's life does he get to see the President. They bussed us over to the White House and escorted us to the South Lawn. The President's helicopter was revved up and out came Reagan in that brown corduroy jacket and yes I did wave and act a fool. Reagan bless his heart waved and went into the helicopter smiling all the way. R.I.P. Gipper.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 6/06/2004 06:06:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, May 23, 2004 ::

Tired

I think the word that properly describes many Americans is "tired." We tired of listening to Bush Administration lies and we are tired of their accolytes' constant lies and distortions. We are tired of hearing how the Iraqis have new schools, clean water, electricity and the like when the United States' infrastructure is crumbling. We are tired of soldiers dying and mothers crying. We are tired of the conservative right wing of the republican party using God in fundamentally dishonest ways. We are tired of the lack of personal and professional accountability. We are tired of legitimate criticsm of Bush being called unpatriotic and Bush hating. We are tired of the lie that is the Iraq war. We are tired of the Bush Administration's failure to acknowledge that the huge budget deficcits will definitely hurt America economically in the long run. We are just plain tired! John Kerry may not be the end all be all, but he can not screw it up any more than it already is.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/23/2004 08:15:00 AM [+] ::
...

Torture Defined

Torture as defined by the Look Way Up web site:

1. [v] torment emotionally or mentally. More...

2. [n] extreme mental distress. More...

3. [v] subject to torture. More...

4. [n] the act of torturing someone. More...

5. [n] the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean. More...

6. [n] intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain. More...

7. [n] unbearable physical pain. More...

Now based on what you have seen in the Iraqi Prisoner photos, is it torture?

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/23/2004 08:11:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Thursday, May 13, 2004 ::

Rummy

I have an admission to make. I actually like Donald Rumsfeld and I don't think that he should resign. Rummy is not the problem. The real problem is Dick Cheney and his neo-cons. Look they even got to Colin Powell. (Remember the speech at the U.N.) I think the Rummy and Colin are two decent guys who were duped by Cheney and his accolytes. Like Powell I think that Rumsfeld is now trying to now deal with reality. This is what happens when you lay down with dogs: You get up with fleas.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/13/2004 07:30:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Monday, May 10, 2004 ::

The Man Who Should Be President

He's a Vietnam Vet and a highly decorated soldier. He has served in the United States Senate for many years. He has been unfairly maligned by the Bush Administration and his minions. He is truly a man of our time. He is fair and balanced, thoughtful, and decisive. He should be the next President of the United States. I just watched him on television giving an interview. The conservative republicans have made a grave mistake because this man has integrity and true character. The next President of the United States should be ... John McCain! I had you all going there for a minute. I still like Johnnie Mac and he would be a hugh improvement over the Dauphin and Lurch!

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/10/2004 09:35:00 PM [+] ::
...

Interview with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Fred Barnes

Militantone: Gentlemen, I understand that you believe that John Kerry and the Democrats are playing politics with the Iraqi prisoner issue.

Hannity: Waahh! Waahhh! Waaaahhhhh!
Limbaugh" Heh, heh, heh!
Barnes: Aarraugghhh!

Militantone: Alright? Next question. Are the democrats acting unpatriotic for wanting to know the truth behind the Iraqi prisoner incidents?

Hannity: Waahh! Waahhh! Waaaahhhhh!
Limbaugh" Heh, heh, heh!
Barnes: Aarraugghhh!

Militantone: Okay, gentlemen, I see that we are having difficulty holding in our emotions. Let me try one more time. How does the title, "President Kerry," strike you?

Hannity: Waahh! Waahhh! Waaaahhhhh!
Limbaugh" Heh, heh, heh!
Barnes: Aarraugghhh!

Militantone: Well there you have it. The best articulation I've heard to date of the conservative right's position on the Iraqi prisoner issue and John Kerry. This is the Militant One signing off.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/10/2004 06:15:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, May 09, 2004 ::

The Far Left and War

Some on the Far Left are confusing just wars with unjust wars. Afghanistan is a just war. Osama crashed planes into the World trade Center and the Pentagon. He was being habored by the Taliban. We attack the Taliban and drive them from power. See that is what you do when you are attacked and innocent civilians are slaughtered. That Bush has screwed up certain victory by not committing enough troops does not diminish the justness of the war.

Now Iraq is a differect story. It is an unjust war. We went in on phony evidence and drove out Saddam. Excuse me, but I thought the two primary objectives of the war were WMD and regime change. There are and never were any WMD and Saddam is history. So now what is the point? Democracy? Better schools and hospitals? Oil? We are now fighting mostly Iraqis. Many who were oppressed under Saddam. Liberators? Hardly. The Iraqi people are showing that our presence is no longer required. Fine. Let's turn this thing over lock, stock and barrel come June 30th and leave. Wait, what do you mean? We broke it so we own it? Oh yeah, that's what Colin Powell said to Bush prior to the invasion.

The Far Left is now railing against both wars. Their arguments would be more effective if they acknowledged that some wars were necessary even if bungled by politicians. There are valid and cogent points to be made in both cases; however, the United States need never apologize for defending itself. Now making up evidence to go to war is a different issue altogether!

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/09/2004 05:53:00 AM [+] ::
...

Ted Rall is an Idiot

In case you don't know Ted Rall is a cartoonist who is part of the far left. He drew a cartoon the other day that pretty much called Pat Tillman a fool for giving up pro football to serve his country as a soldier. Pat Tillman was a very decent guy who realized that he wanted to do something more meaningful for his country. That he was killed is tragic, but he was no fool. Even I called a recruiter after 9/11. It's been almost 20 years since I left the Army, but I was ready to go back in. Since I am the only republican in my family I didn't have much support. In addition no one wants to deal with the prospect of me not surviving a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. Well Pat Tillman didn't just think about it, he actually gave up his glamourous life to serve his country. I think the fool in this cartoon flap is Ted Rall. Pat Tillman is not responsible for Bush's Iraq debacle. Also, Tillman was in Afghanistan, a war which was appropriate to prosecute after 9/11. Do not confuse the two. That we screwed up in Afghanistan by not finishing off Osama is not Tillman's fault either. Tillman is one of many brave Americans who gave their lives in the service of the country. Ted Rall is an idiot!

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/09/2004 05:12:00 AM [+] ::
...

I'm Not The Only One

Here's part of an article that appears this morning in the Washington Post:

Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks On War Strategy
U.S. May Be Winning Battles in Iraq But Losing the War, Some Officers Say
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 9, 2004; Page A01

Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the course of the occupation of Iraq, with some senior officers beginning to say that the United States faces the prospect of casualties for years without achieving its goal of establishing a free and democratic Iraq.

Their major worry is that the United States is prevailing militarily but failing to win the support of the Iraqi people. That view is far from universal, but it is spreading and being voiced publicly for the first time.

Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, who spent much of the year in western Iraq, said he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the U.S. military is still winning. But when asked whether he believes the United States is losing, he said, "I think strategically, we are."

Army Col. Paul Hughes, who last year was the first director of strategic planning for the U.S. occupation authority in Baghdad, said he agrees with that view and noted that a pattern of winning battles while losing a war characterized the U.S. failure in Vietnam. "Unless we ensure that we have coherency in our policy, we will lose strategically," he said in an interview Friday.

"I lost my brother in Vietnam," added Hughes, a veteran Army strategist who is involved in formulating Iraq policy. "I promised myself, when I came on active duty, that I would do everything in my power to prevent that [sort of strategic loss] from happening again. Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose the war, because we don't understand the war we're in."

The emergence of sharp differences over U.S. strategy has set off a debate, a year after the United States ostensibly won a war in Iraq, about how to preserve that victory. The core question is how to end a festering insurrection that has stymied some reconstruction efforts, made many Iraqis feel less safe and created uncertainty about who actually will run the country after the scheduled turnover of sovereignty June 30.

Inside and outside the armed forces, experts generally argue that the U.S. military should remain there but should change its approach. Some argue for more troops, others for less, but they generally agree on revising the stated U.S. goals to make them less ambitious. They are worried by evidence that the United States is losing ground with the Iraqi public.

Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by ousting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whom they see as responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the past year. Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him.

A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States is already on the road to defeat. "It is doubtful we can go on much longer like this," he said. "The American people may not stand for it -- and they should not."

Asked who was to blame, this general pointed directly at Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. "I do not believe we had a clearly defined war strategy, end state and exit strategy before we commenced our invasion," he said. "Had someone like Colin Powell been the chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], he would not have agreed to send troops without a clear exit strategy. The current OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] refused to listen or adhere to military advice."

Like several other officers interviewed for this report, this general spoke only on the condition that his name not be used. One reason for this is that some of these officers deal frequently with the senior Pentagon civilian officials they are criticizing, and some remain dependent on top officials to approve their current efforts and future promotions. Also, some say they believe that Rumsfeld and other top civilians punish public dissent. Senior officers frequently cite what they believe was the vindictive treatment of then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki after he said early in 2003 that the administration was underestimating the number of U.S. troops that would be required to occupy postwar Iraq.

Here a post I did a few days ago:

Thu May 06, 06:57:03 PM | Da' Militant 1 | edit ]
The Dauphin Capitulates

George Bush capitulated to the Arab world today during a shameful and incoherent press conference. It did not help that the King of Jordan spoke better english than the so-called leader of the free world. The Dauphin acknowledged that he told the King of Jordan that he was sorry for what happened to the Iraqi prisoners at the hands of the U.S. military. That he was too cowardly to say that he was sorry yesterday when he truly had the world's spotlight has once again caused the U.S. to lose even more of its already tattered credibility. The Arab world now sees the Dauphin in his true light. A craven and moral coward who should never had been appointed to the presidency. Those of you "kool aid" drinkers out there who still support him, why? You are for ever telling the rest of us that he is doing a wonderful job. And he is, only it is in recruiting more talent for Osama and all other folks who can't stand America. I guess there are no more standards of conduct for a president. I will trade Bill Clinton's lie about Monica over Bush's serial crimes any day. Read through my other posts if you want a running documentary of his crimes. This is a "Chistian" nation? You allow an incompentent fool to continue to masquerade as president and everything he touches turns to failure. The war in Iraq is unwinnable no matter how many Iraqis we kill and maim. See, the war has been lost in the court of world opinion and we no longer hold the moral high ground. Read Colin Powell's interview in this month's GQ. It says it all. High crimes, misdemeanors and assorted other crimes have been perpetrated by the Bush Administration and it is time for another impeachment. The lies of Iraq, the outing of a CIA operative, the funnelling of $700 million for the Afghanistan war to plan for the war in Iraq just to name a few of the "high crimes." Like Master Po told Grasshopper, "It is time for you to leave."
Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/09/2004 04:53:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, May 08, 2004 ::

Sit Down and Shut Up

Memo to conservative republicans. It's time for some of you to shutup and sit down. The country has been doing it your way for the past three years. We have record deficits, two wars that don't seem to have a conclusion, and the hatred of the world. This is what happens when arrogant phony hypocrites hijack America foreign policy. To see you pontificating at the Iraqi prisoner abuse hearings is a joke. Your boy Rush doesn't have to filter or shade his words and you know that most of you feel the same way. Rush says its no more than a "fraternity prank" and troops letting off steam. Your biggest outrage is that this has come to light and the world is outraged. The fact that you have to qualify all of your comments about how wonderful the rest of the troops are performing is an indication at least to many that your outrage is dubious at best. Most of the world knows that the vast majority of American soldiers are solid professionals. That some in the Arab world and Europe feel differently is more of a function of their overall disdain for the Bush Administration and its policies. Get used to it because if the Dauphin is reappointed we will have at least four more years of disgrace and misery. You talk about schools being built, clean water being available and hospitals being built in Iraq. Sounds like a job for the Peace Corps. How about the hospital closings that have gone on in the Nation's Capital in the past few years? Don't hear you bragging about that.

The bitter truth is that the American government has moved so far to the right that it no longer represents those high ideals that were hallmarks to the rest of the world. No dissent was allowed after 9/11. Not once did you look back and admit a mistake. You just kept on pushing your narrow ideological agenda damn the consequences. Is it that you think biblical prophesy is being revealed? Well don't be surprised if you will be taking the "down" elevator because there is nothing christian about what is going on with the so-called christian right. None of the carnage would be happening without your blessing to the Bush Administration. Your insistence that the country go to war in Iraq was wholly without merit or substance. Any reader of history and warfare would have surmised that the true battles in Iraq would be fought in the cities not the desert. Saddam had no air force. His armor was poor and his soldiers were not very good desert fighters against the U.S. Now if the Iraqis could lure the Americans into the cities, they could then start the body count. And now the battle has been joined. Surprise, surprise! Pictures of naked Iraqis and sadistic American soldiers begin to flood the Internet. Why are you surprised? Our policies have been anti-arab and pro-Israel for many years. The soldiers who now serve in Iraq grew up hearing and seeing nothing, but negative images of arabs and Iraqis. You then send them over to fight these images and guess what? Some American soldiers begin to humilate and degrade a bunch of worthless so and sos who are killing their friends and keeping them from seeing their families. That the abuse was probably at least tacitly ordered by military intelligence or some other entity shows how easy even the best of us can be pulled into the madness. The fact is that the conservative right has had its chance and has screwed up at every turn. Now it's time for you to sit down and shut up!

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/08/2004 03:03:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Thursday, May 06, 2004 ::

Sounds like War Crimes

Groups Say They Cited Iraq Prison Abuse

By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq oldest human rights group and the international Red Cross said Thursday that they complained repeatedly last year about mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, long before the U.S. Army began investigating abuse allegations. The Human Rights Organization in Iraq said it got little response from American administrators, although the Red Cross said U.S. officials made some changes after it pointed to specific practices at the Abu Ghraib prison. The U.S. military began an investigation at Abu Ghraib in January, after an American guard informed commanders of abuses inflicted by colleagues. The probe has since widened into a look at whether there was systematic abuse at detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The scandal mushroomed after pictures became public last week showing abuses at Abu Ghraib. Photos of smiling American guards stripping Iraqi prisoners and sexually humiliating them set off an international outcry and outraged Arabs. President Bush apologized Thursday, saying he was "sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families." He said the images had made Americans "sick to their stomach." Adel al-Allami, an official at the Iraqi human rights organization, said his group tried for months last year to get an audience with U.S. occupation officials. He said it wanted to present a list of reported abuses at prisons as well as complaints about mistreatment of Iraqis during U.S. raids on homes in the search for insurgents.
"We knew of many human rights violations and sent a number of memos," al-Allami said, saying the group had reports of detainees being beaten and deprived of sleep. Iraqi civilians also complain about heavy-handed methods used by soldiers during raids, including the hooding of detainees, damage to homes and theft of property, he said. The human rights organization, which was founded in 1960 but kept a low profile during Saddam Hussein 's regime, asked repeatedly for meetings with coalition officials, but each time officials "would give excuses for not meeting," al-Allami said.

The group finally got a meeting three weeks ago and presented requests for compensation for mistreated Iraqis, he said. "The treatment of these issues has not been positive at all," he said of U.S. administrators. "They have felt that Americans have total protection from any sort of prosecution ... This is the authority of the strong over the weak." Red Cross teams have been visiting Abu Ghraib every five or six weeks since last year, the organization's regional spokeswoman, Nada Doumani, told The Associated Press by telephone from Amman, Jordan. "We were aware of what was going on, and based on our findings we have repeatedly requested the U.S. authorities to take corrective action," she said.
She said U.S. officials did make some changes, but added that they were not necessarily connected directly to "this issue about having naked people like this or like that, or homosexual practices." She said Red Cross regulations prevented her from being specific about what practices the organization complained about or what corrections were taken. The Army investigation at Abu Ghraib found that military police had on at least one occasion hidden prisoners during a visit by a Red Cross delegation. A two-month-old report, disclosed last week, said the incident included six to eight prisoners and noted that "this maneuver was deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine and in violation of international law."

Secretary of State Colin Powell telephoned the international Red Cross president, Jakob Kellenberger, on Thursday to assure him that the U.S. government was dealing with the reported abuse of Iraqi detainees. "We will answer in a comprehensive way," Powell told reporters. Six American guards have been charged and seven other officials have been disciplined for abuses investigated in January. But since then, evidence has grown that abuse was not an isolated occurrence. The Army disclosed Tuesday that it was looking into 10 prisoner deaths and said two other deaths already had been ruled homicides. On Wednesday, an intelligence official said the CIA inspector general was examining two additional deaths involving agency interrogators.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/06/2004 07:25:00 PM [+] ::
...

My Take on John Kerry

I think that John Kerry is a good man and a weak candidate. He can't seem to put passion in his words or inspiration in his actions. Now is the time for Kerry to seize the moment and engage Bush fully. Instead he is an antidote for No-Doz. Unbelievably lackluster and wooden. Kerry one big asset is that he is not George W. Bush. However, this is not enough to beat Bush. Bush is a spoiled rich kid who needs to be confronted face to face with zeal and conviction. Alas, I don't know that Kerry is the man to do it.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/06/2004 07:13:00 PM [+] ::
...

Should Rumsfield be fired?

In a word, "No." Rumsfield is not doing anything that Bush is disapproving of. Who should take Runsfield's place? Another hand-picked incompetent? Come Novmber you all can make sure that both Rumsfield and Bush join the ranks of the unemployed

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/06/2004 07:05:00 PM [+] ::
...

The Dauphin Capitulates

George Bush capitulated to the Arab world today during a shameful and incoherent press conference. It did not help that the King of Jordan spoke better english than the so-called leader of the free world. The Dauphin acknowledged that he told the King of Jordan that he was sorry for what happened to the Iraqi prisoners at the hands of the U.S. military. That he was too cowardly to say that he was sorry yesterday when he truly had the world's spotlight has once again caused the U.S. to lose even more of its already tattered credibility. The Arab world now sees the Dauphin in his true light. A craven and moral coward who should never had been appointed to the presidency. Those of you "kool aid" drinkers out there who still support him, why? You are for ever telling the rest of us that he is doing a wonderful job. And he is, only it is in recruiting more talent for Osama and all other folks who can't stand America. I guess there are no more standards of conduct for a president. I will trade Bill Clinton's lie about Monica over Bush's serial crimes any day. Read through my other posts if you want a running documentary of his crimes. This is a "Chistian" nation? You allow an incompentent fool to continue to masquerade as president and everything he touches turns to failure. The war in Iraq is unwinnable no matter how many Iraqis we kill and maim. See, the war has been lost in the court of world opinion and we no longer hold the moral high ground. Read Colin Powell's interview in this month's GQ. It says it all. High crimes, misdemeanors and assorted other crimes have been perpetrated by the Bush Administration and it is time for another impeachment. The lies of Iraq, the outing of a CIA operative, the funnelling of $700 million for the Afghanistan war to plan for the war in Iraq just to name a few of the "high crimes." Like Master Po told Grasshopper, "It is time for you to leave."

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/06/2004 06:57:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, May 02, 2004 ::

Victory in Fallujah

The Iraqi insurgents and terrorists celebrated a victory today when the Bush Administration ordered marines to withdrawal from Fallujah. The proud marines were forced to stand down as the casuality rate is too high and is starting to interfere with Bush's reelection campaign. A senior admnistration official stated that "one or two soldiers dying each week is better for our re-election efforts. Besides we only wanted the oil fields anyway." The Iraqi insurgents and terrorists say that their great victory is made greater by the fact that with Saddam gone they now have no one to keep them in check. They laughed and said that while they knew that Saddam was keeping a lid on a hornet's nest, they hoped to convince the world that he was an "evil doer", a "bad man", and a "brutal dictator". They all proceeded to shout "Mission Accomplished".

Back in the White House George W. Bush took a nap while Dick Cheney fielded questions.

Question: Where is the president?

Cheney: He is taking his afternoon nap.

Question: Shouldn't he be answering these questions?

Cheney: Heh, heh, heh. Look little Georgie had a rough day. They pre-empted the Bugs Bunny Roadrunner Hour this morning and we were all out of Bosco.

Question: Wow, that does sound like a rough morning.

At that moment, the president walked into the room rubbing his eyes and crying that the loud voices woke him up. Vice President Cheney preceded to give the President a glass of warm milk, burbed him and sent him back to bed. The President began to cry and Cheney read him his favorite bedtime story, "Curious George". The President finally fell asleep and Cheney asked us to lower our voices

Cheney: I only have time for a few questions.

Question: Why did we withdraw from Fallujah?

Cheney: We did not withdraw, we redistributed our forces.

Question: But the Iraqi insurgents and terrorist elements are calling this a major defeat for the U.S. and a victory for terrorism.

Cheney: Listen, no one is more committed to fighting terrorism than this president. That show off John Kerry would have terrorists running his foreign policy.

Question: Then why give up on Fallujah?

Cheney: We haven't. As we speak we have one of Saddam's former generals leading an all-Iraqi battalion in Fallujah.

Question: A former general of Saddam's?

Cheney: You betcha'.

Question: Wasn't one of the objectives of the war to rid Iraq of Saddam and his military apparatus?

Cheney: Of, course.

Question: Then why is the general being permitted to lead troops.

Cheney: Have you seen those Iraqi insurgents and terrorists? They're mean guys. They keep shooting at us.

Question: Well, Sir, this is a war and we are shooting at them.

Cheney: Yeah, but they were supposed to welcome us with open arms.

Question: What happened?

Cheney: They didn't get the memo.

Question: What is the strategy now?

Cheney: No further questions.

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/02/2004 11:10:00 AM [+] ::
...

Ode to Sleepy John

Awake, awake my stout tall friend
the election is a coming
the Bush machine is in full swing
it's locked, loaded and humming.

Now is the time to make your name
so leap into the fray
not tomorrow, not next week
right now, right here, today

Awake from your slumber the hour is late
and your chances are growing slimmer
The country can't afford another four years of Bush,
the Dauphin, our light is growing dimmer

Open your eyes and stand to post
For you have a charge to keep
and I have many more posts to write
and miles before I sleep

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/02/2004 10:01:00 AM [+] ::
...

John Kerry Lives

Despite news to the contrary John Kerry is alive. Yeah I know, I saw him on Meet the Press and I couldn't tell either. John get some pep in your step. You don't have to Howard Dean it, but can you at least show some passion? Bush has given you so many openings and all you can do is argue about ribbons and medals. Who cares what Cheney and the chickenhawks say? Just look them in the eye call them cowards and move on. I here that vitamin B-12 does wonders. I thought that at one point during your interview with Tim "Fats" Russert, he was going to put a mirror under your nose to see if you were still breathing. The dour patrician statesman look is old. Show some energy!

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/02/2004 09:46:00 AM [+] ::
...

Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 5/02/2004 09:39:00 AM [+] ::
...

Iraqi POWs

What can you say? We blew it. What little dignity we have left is gone. This is what happens when you start to dig a hole and can't stop. It's had to have the moral pulpit when you are doing the same thing that you are accusing others of. Well at least we didn't burn them and string the from a bridge. That is your response? If that's the best you can do, then we are truly in big trouble!

:: DM1 5/02/2004 08:48:00 AM [+] ::
...

Here's A Letter from an Old Man who has it Right

Cowards shouldn't quibble or accuse
May 1, 2004

WHAT'S ALL this horse manure about ribbons and medals? And it comes from absentee Dick Cheney and semi-AWOL George Bush. How dare the administration's Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, who skipped the war of their time, send 700 young Americans to their deaths.

We now watch in amazement as the coalition of wimps tries to diminish John Kerry's service!

I won some medals flying against the Nazis. Now I can't even find my medals or ribbons. The terminology is irrelevant. The ribbons are just the wearable stand-ins for the medals. They aren't important except for being symbols of service. All sevicemen's discharge papers record the awards.

I recall the day my wife and I camped out on Lexington Green with John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. We and hundreds of the region's solid citizens believed that members of the US military who had been hoodwinked into fighting a dirty and mistaken war deserved our support.

Kerry was right as a patriot to put his life on the line and then, with the wisdom that came from his experience in Vietnam, to do his best to end the slaughter of young Americans. If that's what this Republican flip-flop issue is about, I think the Bush camp should be ashamed. Cowards shouldn't quibble and accuse. They didn't earn the right.

RICHARD C. BARTLETT
Cotuit

That pretty mush sums up a lot of the anger towards the "chickenhawks". I will give Rummy and Colin their due because they served honorably. Bush, Cheney, Woofy, and the rest didn't step up when they could have. Neither did Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume, Barnes, or Kristol. All of you could have spoken loud and clearly by serving your country in uniform, but you didn't. It's not that any of you didn't serve in combat, it's that you didn't serve. Bush doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because his daddy's pull got him in the National Guard. All of you phonies out there know that back in day folks like Bush joined the Guard to get out of going to Vietnam. Don't try the justification that Bush flew jets and was in a dangerous MOS. I bet most of the soldiers in Vietnam would have traded flying jets in Texas to sloushing in rice patties being shot at. So just go away. If Ollie or G. Gordon want to take Kerry to task, fine, let's have at it. The rest of you haven't earned it. Peace

MilitantOne
U.S. Army 1981-85
Expert M-16 and Grenade (and I was a computer programmer)
Army Achievement Medal 1985
West Point 1980 (Before the good old boys ran me out)

:: DM1 5/02/2004 08:37:00 AM [+] ::
...

Contact Info

For those of you who want to respond to one of my blogs, you can respond at "militant.one@att.net" I will post your email and my response. You can be raw, but keep in mind that Michael Powell runs the FCC. I take on all comers. Peace.

:: DM1 5/02/2004 08:03:00 AM [+] ::
...

Shout Out to My "Number 1" Fan

I just want to give props to my #1 Fan. He is a white conservative republican and needs to run for office like I have been suggesting for years. Now don't get me wrong he's got a little dirt under his fingers just like I do. He also could bring some perspective to the conservative wing of the party. He's been around black folks and white liberals and though he may not agree with all that is going down, he would be a breath of fresh air to the narrow-minded self-centered folks who hover at the top. That the two of us have been able to break bread for lo' these many years I think bodes well for the human condition. Anyway, he's a good friend and I want to spotlight our friendship in this blog. Peace.

:: DM1 5/02/2004 07:51:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Thursday, April 29, 2004 ::

Blinders

Some white republican conservatives remind me of a horse pulling a buggy with "blinders" on. The only thing they can see is the direction that they want to go. One more time, not all of the rest of the world wants to be like America. Other people have their own cultures and traditions. What does it take to get that through your skulls? You are led by emotion and ideology and you are destroying this nation. You say you are Christians, where are your works? You got rid of Saddam? Well since you put him there you were only making things right. You believe in tough love for liberals and minorities. Yet white conservatives get passes from you. For example, Bill "The $8 Million Gambler" Bennett; Rush "The Oxycotin Man" Limbaugh; George "Mission Accomplished" Bush; Dick "Other Priorities" Cheney; Sean "I was not called to serve" Hannity; Tom "I don't remember if I was the CEO" Delay, and on and on. A bunch of frauds who get passes from folks in the "red" states. Then you have Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima, I mean Colin and Condi. What? I shouldn't have said that? Go back and look at slave life. Massa always had a couple of "Negroes" who they trusted and who would stay by Massa no matter what. That Colin Powell can be uppity and virtuous at times really riles some of you. Until you look past your own narrow world you will never achieve that which you seek. Face it, the entire government is run by conservative white republicans and where is our country. Who in the world can we count on? Who can count on us? How many soldiers must die in Iraq before your bloodlust has been satisfied? I have stayed clear on talking about race in certains contexts until recently. However, now is the time to question white, conservative republicans in the same manner that they question liberals and minorities with labels and contempt. Who is really blind, the man with eyes who refuses to see or the man who is blind and can not see?

:: DM1 4/29/2004 11:36:00 PM [+] ::
...

Dick Bergen and George W. McCarthy

The "Dummy" is about to speak and give Unka' Dick's version of their sit down routine with the 9/11 Commission. What is really galling is that he didn't have the moral courage or leadership to appear before the Commission by himself. nor has he ever taken responsibility for any of the failures that have occurred on his watch. Folks like to call the "Big Dog" (Bill Clinton) a disgrace, but you are looking at the true definition the word in George W. Bush. What's really bothering me is that I voted for his father and would again tomorrow, but this apple has fallen far from the tree. He's been a slacker his entire life and if it wasn't for hhis daddy and his daddy's friends he would be dumpster diving for a living. I wonder if Bush sat on Cheney's knee during the interview and if one could see Cheney's lips move. A more important question is if Bush did sit on Cheney's knee where did Cheney place his hand? I'm sure that you know where I am going with this. If Cheney did place his hand where I think he did, did he first have to remove Bush's head? Stay with me, I don't want this blog to get censored so I have to talk around the subject some what. Now the "dummy" is out in the Rose Garden reading what Rove and Unka' Dick have placed in front of him. Thoroughly pathetic. It's time to end this side show. John Kerry, it's time for you to "ruck up" and stop being a statesman. If you want to beat this crowd you are going to have to get in the gutter with them because that is where they do their best work.

:: DM1 4/29/2004 01:27:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, April 24, 2004 ::

Well, well, well.

I just posted a comment about the looming fight in Fallujah and I run across this. Just a taste of the article.

April 25, 2004
Bush's Decision on Possible Attack on Falluja Seems Near
By DAVID E. SANGER
and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, April 24 — Facing one of the grimmest choices of the Iraq war, President Bush and his senior national security and military advisers are expected to decide this weekend whether to order an invasion of Fallujah, even if a battle there runs the risk of uprisings in the city and perhaps elsewhere around Iraq.

Did you get that? The Bush Administration is going to decide if Fallujah is going to be attacked not the military commanders in the field. All we can hope for now is that the military is able to carry out what is a twisted and poorly thought out strategy. It is folly send the marines house to house because death will be behind many a corner. How about airstrikes, first? Understand that you will have to destroy Fallujah to save it. Bottom line. I sure hope that I am wrong, but looking through my columns I have been right most of the time. I hope for the sake of the Iraqis and the American soldiers that I lose this one.

:: DM1 4/24/2004 08:24:00 PM [+] ::
...

WWSD

I wonder what Saddam would do if he was faced with multiple uprisings. Oh, yeah that's right he killed those who were uprising along with many civilians. Now what is the U.S. getting ready to do? How about killing those who are uprising along with many civilians. Wait a minute, we took out Saddam because he was suppressing and killing his people. We are killing and suppressing Saddam's people because we are trying to liberate them. What? How bizarre is it that we are doing exactly what Saddam would do? Only Saddam did it better. If folks were shooting at Saddam's troops from a Mosque, Saddam would have had the Mosque blown up. See that is how war is fought. I am so glad that in Fallujah we have given the Iraqi rebels many days to reinforce their positions and coordinate their tactics. Can you say more dead Americans? I am so glad that the Bush Administration is making sure that this war is a quagmire. Keep tying the military's hands and it will get worse. Say what you will about Saddam he had a docile electorate and he didn't have to worry about uprisings. Could he have been on to something or did he realize that the Shia, the Sunnis, Baathist and the Kurds would never live together under one flag unless forced? Pandora has left the building and she is raising some big time hell. What to do, what to do? The question that should be asked now is whether or not Iraq is worth saving in it's current form. Like I said, "WWSD"?

:: DM1 4/24/2004 08:09:00 PM [+] ::
...

I See Dead People

I've been mulling ovee the pictures of the coffins of American soldiers. Should they be shown? Why not? Loudmouth couldn't wait to "prance" across that flight deck last year and imply that the worst was over. Major combat operations over? I think not. I don't know if there is a conflict in history where more folks were killed AFTER major combat operations. I don't think that I can take another day of the Iraqis loving us. The country is a killing zone and American soldiers are the target. Dauphin, what is the frequency? No plan and no exit strategy, thousands wounded and killed. And that's why the coffins should be shown, daily.

:: DM1 4/24/2004 07:54:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, April 18, 2004 ::

One Reason Why Afghan President Hamed Karzai is Known as the "Mayor of Kabul"

From the Seattle Times:

Woodward book tells of Bush's march to war in Iraq

By The Associated Press and The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — President Bush quietly ordered creation of a war plan against Iraq in November 2001 while overseeing a divided national-security team, including a vice president determined to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida, a new book says.

Journalist Bob Woodward, in "Plan of Attack," says Secretary of State Colin Powell believed Vice President Dick Cheney developed — as Woodward puts it — an "unhealthy fixation" on trying to find a connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush dismissed such characterizations of Cheney.

Another key revelation: Bush in mid-2002 secretly approved the diversion of hundreds of millions of dollars meant for Afghanistan to projects that would set the stage for a massive deployment of U.S. troops to the Persian Gulf region.

Did you get that? Bush secretly diverted hundreds of millions of dollars FROM Afghanistan to Iraq. The war in Afghanistan was supposed to bring democracy to the country and culminate in the capture or killing of Osama Bin Laden. Instead Bush chose to chase Saddam. Didn't he tell us that we would get Osama "dead or live"? I bet you all thought he meant it. Now you find out that he half-a**ed it. Basically told you anything he wanted to and then went behind your back and subverted the march to victory in Afghanistan. Now Hamed Karzai walks, and very quickly I might add, around the streets of Kabul trying to appear presidential. This I might add is striking similar to what Bush has been doing in the U.S. Bush diverted milions and millions of dollars away from our efforts to capture or kill Public Enemy #1 Osama to go after Saddam. Not one Iraqi was among any of the hijackers of 9/11. I submit that this revelation as well as other proveable breaches of the public's faith call for a strong response from the citizenry and Congress. Can you say impeachment? The only WMD that the republicans were looking for in the 90s belonged to Bill Clinton and when they found it they impeached him. The only person who was attacked by Clinton's WMD was Monica and she has the stained dress to prove it. Bush's search for nonexistent WMD in Iraq has caused thousands of U.S. and Iraqi casualities and deaths. It is time for this embarassment as a president to leave office. We need new leadership and I don't care which John Kerry shows up on election day, either one of them is better than what we have now, the boy who would be king.

:: DM1 4/18/2004 07:56:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, April 16, 2004 ::

My Take on Bush Latest Press Conference

What can I say? I already had low expectations going in and Bush did not disappoint. This is the man that the republicans want to lead this nation? Yeah, I know that Bush is an average guy, which is why we should be looking for above average people to serve as president. I mean he was on vacation and had a chance to prep for any and all questions. It was as some have said "very painful" to watch. Bush has conviction, but limited intellect and reasoning ability. While some of the questions put Bush on the spot, that he could not finesse them speaks volumes on his ability to fully serve in his capacity as president. He doesn't have a clue and is a significant hinderance to our country's ability to be taken serious and believed by the rest of the world. The folly of invading Iraq was an open secret. Any prudent reading of the Middle East and Iraqi history would have underscored the difficulty not of taking Iraq, but of holding it. That Bush and his underlings seem to have no historical perspective has been a tragedy for the country and their policies are leading to the needless deaths and grevious wounding of thousands of soldiers. And now Bush wants the U.N. to step in. What did Bush call the U.N. just last year? Irrelevent? I think the country and the world are finding out who is really irrelevent. For all his bluster and tough talk, Bush is now relying on events to shape the Iraq policy instead of truly developing a plan. Bush's performance at the press conference was par for the course and as usual we are all the poorer for it.

:: DM1 4/16/2004 06:11:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Monday, April 12, 2004 ::

Arrogance

Can someone pleas tell George W. Bush to tone down the arrogance! In what was the worst week of fighting in the war since the Spring of 2003, GWB was no where to be found. A "War President", please. Can you for once stop your vacation go to the White House and do some work. The country was wobbled last week and where were you? Gone fishing. That pretty much sums up your actions when your country needs you. Alright, you did a GREAT job after 9/11 even I prayed for you and hung out a flag. Your approval rating was at 90% and what do you do with the consensus? Squandered it. Now there is no consensus and don't not blame the democrats for i t was they who put you at 90%. They continued to support you even while watching their leaders fall under your boot. Then came Iraq. You could have given inspections a couple more months, but no, it was your your way and your way only. Now what. How about going before the United Nations and the American public and asking for a new partnership in pacifying Iraq. Now understand that the people of Iraq have a history of altering even the best laid plans. Go to Iraq and talk to the top clerics. Give them your word personally. You will be surprised how a little diplomacy goes a long way. Next, get rid of Dick Cheney. You've been listening to him all along and he is getting you screwed. Stop dodging responsibility. You were president for 8 months prior to 9/11. You should have stepped up. Nothing Bill Clinton did prevented you from letting the public in on the warnings that preceded 9/11. Maybe a more alert public could have provided authorities with the missing intellgence. Stop sending poor Condi out to spin your actions and positions. You should be taking the heat. How is it condi has to appear under oath in public by herself and you get to appear in private, unsworn and with Dick Cheney by your side? It makes you look weak and unable to defend yourself. In short, dispense with the arrogance. You are no better than the rest of us. You should be working with all of America not just the extreme right. You still have an opportunity to get it right. Now let's see if you have the ciourage.

:: DM1 4/12/2004 08:16:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, April 11, 2004 ::

Laziest White Man I Ever Saw

Here's an article from the Houston Chronicle:

Neither war nor inquiry keeps Bush from R&R

Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

It's Easter weekend, and that means President Bush is at the ranch, nevermind that U.S. troops last week struggled to put down an uprising in Iraq or his national security adviser was being grilled about who knew what and when before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Bush makes the pilgrimage to his Central Texas spread every year for Easter, when the wildflowers are in full bloom and the mesquite trees are sprouting fresh, iridescent green leaves.

Last week, the president gave a tour of the ranch to leaders of hunting rights, recreational sports and gun rights groups. He later sat down for an interview with Ladies' Home Journal.

Bush has now made 33 trips to Crawford since becoming president, bringing his total to more than 230 days at the ranch in a little more than three years, according to a tally kept by CBS News.

Add his 78 trips to Camp David and five to his family's compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has spent all or part of 500 days -- or about 40 percent of his presidency -- at one of his three retreats.

There is an episode from "All in the Family" where Archie is talking to Meathead. In a particular scene, Archie is savaging Meathead for not working and contributing to the upkeep of the house. Archie then exclaims that MEathead was "the laziest white man I ever saw". After George W. Bush's tenure in the White House, I think Meathead has been downgraded to number two.

:: DM1 4/11/2004 11:19:00 AM [+] ::
...

Shouldn't This Be The Other Way Around?

US soldiers in Iraq asked to pray for Bush

They may be the ones facing danger on the battlefield, but US soldiers in Iraq are being asked to pray for President George W Bush.

Thousands of marines have been given a pamphlet called "A Christian's Duty," a mini prayer book which includes a tear-out section to be mailed to the White House pledging the soldier who sends it in has been praying for Bush.

"I have committed to pray for you, your family, your staff and our troops during this time of uncertainty and tumult. May God's peace be your guide," says the pledge, according to a journalist embedded with coalition forces.

The pamphlet, produced by a group called In Touch Ministries, offers a daily prayer to be made for the US president, a born-again Christian who likes to invoke his God in speeches.

Sunday's is "Pray that the President and his advisers will seek God and his wisdom daily and not rely on their own understanding".

Monday's reads "Pray that the President and his advisers will be strong and courageous to do what is right regardless of critics".

How arrogant and self-important is the Dauphin? Shouldn't he be praying for the soldiers AND asking their forgiveness for his incompetence that has put them all at extreme risk? It's bad enough that the military has to carry out his failed policies, but now they have to pray for him? Just disgraceful!

:: DM1 4/11/2004 10:57:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, April 10, 2004 ::

Latest New York Times Article

April 10, 2004
Bush Was Warned of Possible Attack in U.S., Official Says
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and DAVID E. SANGER

ASHINGTON, April 9 — President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.

The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a "closely held intelligence report" that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford.

The disclosure appears to contradict the White House's repeated assertions that the briefing the president received about the Qaeda threat was "historical" in nature and that the White House had little reason to suspect a Qaeda attack within American borders.

Members of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks have asked the White House to make the Aug. 6 briefing memorandum public. The A.P. account of it was attributed to "several people who have seen the memo." The White House has said that nothing in it pointed specifically to the kind of attacks that actually took place a month later.

The Congressional report last year, citing efforts by Al Qaeda operatives beginning in 1997 to attack American soil, said that operatives appeared to have a support structure in the United States and that intelligence officials had "uncorroborated information" that Mr. bin Laden "wanted to hijack airplanes" to gain the release of imprisoned extremists. It also said that intelligence officials received information in May 2001, three months earlier, that indicated "a group of bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives."

Also on Friday, the White House offered evidence that the Federal Bureau of Investigation received instructions more than two months before the Sept. 11 attacks to increase its scrutiny of terrorist suspects inside the United States. But it is unclear what action, if any, the bureau took in response.

The disclosure appeared to signal an effort by the White House to distance itself from the F.B.I. in the debate over whether the Bush administration did enough in the summer of 2001 to deter a possible terrorist attack in the United States in the face of increased warnings.

A classified memorandum, sent around July 4, 2001, to Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, from the counterterrorism group run by Richard A. Clarke, described a series of steps it said the White House had taken to put the nation on heightened terrorist alert. Among the steps, the memorandum said, "all 56 F.B.I. field offices were also tasked in late June to go to increased surveillance and contact with informants related to known or suspected terrorists in the United States."

Parts of the White House memorandum were provided to The New York Times on Friday by a White House official seeking to bolster the public account provided a day before by Ms. Rice, who portrayed an administration aggressively working to deter a domestic terror attack.

But law enforcement officials said Friday that they believed that Ms. Rice's testimony before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks — including her account of scores of F.B.I. investigations under way that summer into suspected Qaeda cells operating in the United States — overstated the scope, thrust and intensity of activities by the F.B.I. within American borders.

Agents at that time were focused mainly on the threat of overseas attacks, law enforcement officials said. The F.B.I. was investigating numerous cases that involved international terrorism and may have had tangential connections to Al Qaeda, but one official said that despite Ms. Rice's account, the investigations were focused more overseas and "were not sleeper cell investigations."

The finger-pointing will probably increase next week when numerous current and former senior law enforcement officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft, testify before the Sept. 11 commission. In an unusual pre-emptive strike, Mr. Ashcroft's chief spokesman on Friday accused some Democrats on the commission of having "political axes to grind" in attacking the attorney general, who oversees the F.B.I., and unfairly blaming him for law enforcement failures.

A similar accusation against the commission was also leveled by Senator Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican with ties to the White House, in a speech on the Senate floor Thursday.

"Sadly, the commission's public hearings have allowed those with political axes to grind, like Richard Clarke, to play shamelessly to the partisan gallery of liberal special interests seeking to bring down the president," Mr. McConnell said.

The charges and countercharges underscored the political challenge that the investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks has become for President Bush as he mounts his re-election bid. The White House sought this week to defuse the situation by allowing Ms. Rice to testify before the Sept. 11 commission after months of resistance. But her appearance served to raise new questions about the administration's efforts to deter an attack.

The White House on Friday put off a decision on declassifying the document at the center of the debate — the Aug. 6 briefing, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." But the administration appeared ready to release at least portions of the document publicly in the coming days.

The memo from Mr. Clarke's group in July 2001 about F.B.I. activities adds another piece of evidence to the document trail, but it is unlikely to resolve the questions over whether the administration did enough to deter an attack.

White House officials, who spent several weeks attacking Mr. Clarke's credibility, said Friday that they believed the memo from his counterterrorism group was an accurate reflection of steps the White House took to deter an attack. But they questioned whether the F.B.I. executed the instructions to intensify its scrutiny of terrorist suspects and contacts in the United States.

In April 2001, the F.B.I. did send out a classified memo to its field offices directing agents to "check with their sources on any information they had relative to terrorism," said a senior law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity. But with the level of threat warnings increasing markedly over the next several months, there is no indication that any directive went out in the late June period that was described in the memo from Mr. Clarke's office.

That summer saw a string of alerts by the F.B.I. and other government agencies about the heightened possibility of a terrorist attack, but most counterterrorism officials believed an attack would come in Saudi Arabia, Israel or elsewhere. Many also were worried about a July 4 attack and were relieved when that date passed uneventfully.

For months, the F.B.I. had been consumed by internal problems of its own, including the arrest of an agent, Robert P. Hanssen, on espionage charges, the disappearance of documents in the Oklahoma City bombing case and the fallout over the Wen Ho Lee spy case. Moreover, the bureau was going through a transition in leadership, with its longtime director, Louis J. Freeh, retiring in June 2001. He was replaced by an acting director, Thomas J. Pickard, until the current director, Robert S. Mueller III, took over in September, just days before the deadly hijackings. All three men will testify at next week's commission hearings and are expected to face sharp questioning about whether the F.B.I. did enough to prevent an attack in the weeks and months before Sept. 11.

At this week's appearance by Ms. Rice, several commissioners sharply questioned whether the F.B.I. and the Justice Department had done enough to act on intelligence warnings about an attack.

"We have done thousands of interviews here at the 9/11 commission," said Timothy J. Roemer, a Democratic member of the panel. "We have gone through literally millions of pieces of paper. To date, we have found nobody — nobody at the F.B.I. who knows anything about a tasking of field offices" to identify the domestic threat.

The apparent miscommunication will probably be a central focus of the commission's hearing next week. Scrutiny is expected to focus in part on communication breakdowns between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. that allowed two of the 19 hijackers to live openly in San Diego despite intelligence about their terrorist ties.

Another Democratic panel member, Jamie S. Gorelick, said at Thursday's hearing that Mr. Ashcroft was briefed in the summer of 2001 about terrorist threats "but there is no evidence of any activity by him."

Such criticism led Mark Corallo, Mr. Ashcroft's chief spokesman at the Justice Department, to say Friday that "some people on the commission are seeking to score political points" by unfairly attacking Mr. Ashcroft's actions before Sept. 11.

"Some have political axes to grind" against Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Corallo said in an interview, naming Ms. Gorelick, who was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration; Mr. Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana, and Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor.

While insisting that he was not speaking personally for Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Corallo said he was offended by Ms. Gorelick's remarks in particular. Offering a detailed preview of Mr. Ashcroft's testimony next week, he said the attorney general was briefed repeatedly by the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. on threats posed by Al Qaeda and was told that the threats were directed at targets overseas. "He was not briefed that there was any threat to the United States," Mr. Corallo said. "He kept asking if there was any action he needed to take, and he was constantly told no, you're doing everything you need to do."

Several commission officials denied in interviews that there was any attempt to treat Mr. Ashcroft unfairly. Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for panel, said that Mr. Ashcroft would be warmly received.

Ms. Gorelick said she was surprised by Mr. Corallo's comments and puzzled by assertions that the attorney general had no knowledge of a domestic terrorist threat in 2001.

"This appears to be a debate within the administration," she said. "On the one hand, you have Dr. Rice saying that the domestic threat was being handled by the Justice Department and F.B.I., and on the other hand, you have the Justice Department saying that there did not appear to be a domestic threat to address. And that is a difference in view that we have to continue to explore."

The commission also heard testimony Friday morning behind closed doors from former Vice President Al Gore.

Former President Bill Clinton appeared before the panel in closed session on Thursday, but a Democratic commission member took issue Friday with Mr. Clinton's assertion that that there was not enough intelligence linking Al Qaeda to the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole to justify a military attack on the terrorist organization.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Bob Kerrey, the former senator from Nebraska, said on ABC's `Good Morning America.'

Philip Shenon, Adam Nagourney and James Risen contributed reporting for this article.

Well, well, well. So Bush did have information warning of Osama and possible attacks inside the U.S. The lies of the left are turning out not to be too far off the mark. Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al., all of you have taken the left to task for basically refuting your lies and telling the truth. Can you say "zero credibility"? For all of your pontificating and indignation, it seems that you all are the liars and the frauds. Oh to be white, conservative, rich, and clueless!

:: DM1 4/10/2004 10:19:00 AM [+] ::
...

The Druggie Speaks about Race

This is the Latest From Rush Limbaugh's Web Site

The Crown Prince of Relevance

April 8, 2004

“Only in Washington when the girl is a Republican and a black can you beat up on her. Couldn't do this if she were representing a Democrat administration regardless of her color, but especially given that she's black.”

“Ben-Veniste thought he was in a moral dominant circumstance, that Dr. Rice would be submissive. You're supposed to know that when he asks a question, you're not supposed to answer it; you're supposed to sit there in due reverence and take whatever he dishes out. She said, 'Screw this.'”

All of a sudden Condi Rice is black. So much for "color blindness. I thought Rush wanted everybody to be judged by the "content of their character". This is a prime example of the phoniness of the conservative movement. Now we see that Condi is just a black woman getting shafted by the Man.

:: DM1 4/10/2004 10:09:00 AM [+] ::
...

Another Blast From the Past

[10/16/2002 7:35:57 PM | Jamie Starr]
Ten Questions for the Chichkenhawks:

If Saddam is such an immediate threat answer the following questions:

1. Why did Bush take a 30-day vacation in August?
2. Why is not the threat assessment at RED, the highest alert?
3. Why now a month before the mid-term elections and not earlier in the year?
4. How many casualities are acceptable?
5. What are the costs?
6. What is the time frame?
7. How long the occupation?
8. What if Iraq attacks Israel and Israel strikes back with nuclear weapons?
9. What happens if Syria helps Iraq?
10. What happens if the democrats take Congress?

:: DM1 4/10/2004 10:00:00 AM [+] ::
...

The Death of a Soldier

I saw it coming from over the hill
and I knew that it was coming for me
I said my prayers and ducked my head
and scooted behind a tree.

But still it came and called my name
It said that I was the one
and when it hit I spun around
and dropped my helmet and gun.

I sank to the ground and started to grab
my neck to stop the bleeding
but still I bled and bled and bled
and started to lose all feeling

As I close my eyes a final time
Please do not mourn for me
For now I see another soldier
waiting for death behind that very tree

:: DM1 4/10/2004 09:38:00 AM [+] ::
...

The War President

Thank God for George W. Bush. We need his strong leadership at a time like this. By the way, where is the Boy King? MR. War President, where are you? Iraq is going to hell in a hand basket, an Afghan Warlord has taken control of several provinces in Afghanistan, and North Korea says this morning that the U.S. and North Korea are at the "brink of nuclear war". Mr. War President could you find time in your busy schedule between clearing brush at your ranch and attending fundraisers to come back to the White House and provide some leadership on these minor issues. Of course all of this is Bill Clinton's fault, but still as president for more than three years I humbly submit that YOU should be doing something. I know Unka' Dick is out of town, so if you are not sure what to do just finish eating your ice cream and take a nap. One more thing Mr. War President, what is happening now is the result of your ineptness as a president and a leader. I know that you are not use to being held accountable for your actions, but I think it's time for you to start acting like a responsible adult. So go back to the White House and start leading. Of course, finish your glass of milk and cookies first.

:: DM1 4/10/2004 09:30:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Thursday, April 08, 2004 ::

Did Bush Know

Recall that in August 2001, George W. Bush went on vacation for a month. Since 9/11 some have accused Bush of knowing about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The title of Bush's August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing was "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States". This was 35 days before the attacks. I don't know how clearer the answer can be. Of course, Bush knew that Osama was going to strike in the United States. Now Bush is being honest if not self-serving by saying that if he had known that terrorist would hijack planes and crash them into buildings, he would have done everything in his power to prevent it. Who doesn't believe that? The question is knowing that Osama was determined to strike inside the U.S. what did Bush do to try and avert the attacks? The answer is obvious and Bush's biggest problem is not being straight about his lack of action. IT is up to the voting public to judge Bush and his leadership. Bush should respect our democracy and start to be candid and honest. I happen to think that Bush is unfit for the presidency because I disagree with his policies and his arrogance. Now there are those of you who love Bush and think that he is a great president. At some point each of us will have to weigh the facts and cast our votes. I will tell you that my view is that Bush has by his behavior forfeited the privilege of a second term. The mess that is Iraq is reason enough, but there has been a facade taking place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Bush's own people do not trust him to testify at the 9/11 Commission. He's going to appear with Dick Cheney? What is that all about? As president he should be able to stand on his own and give a full accounting of his policies and actions. That he is incapable of doing so (See Bush on Meet the Press a couple of months ago.) impugns any rationale he may give for seeking relection. At some point it has to be about the good of the country. Granted John Kerry has "stuff" with him. He will probably be able to cobble together a real coalition to deal with some of the terrorism problems of the world. As far as the economy goes with $500 billion in deficits as far as the eye can see, Kerry would have to be a real idiot to do worse. I report, you decide.

:: DM1 4/08/2004 08:13:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Monday, April 05, 2004 ::

The Height of Arrogance

I just heard George W. Bush taking questions. The first reporter was a gentleman from Associated Press. The reporter had the nerve to refer to Bush as "Sir". Bush shot back "Who are you talking to?" The reporter then referred to Bush as "Mr. President". Only then could the mini press conference continue. What an arrogant so and so. This episode illustrates the problem with Bush, too much hubris and self-importance. I know that we can do better. You know, Bill Clinton was worried about his legacy. I predicted in January 2001 that Bush would ensure that Clinton's legacy would be secured. Bush solidifies Clinton's legacy daily. Clinton for all of his personal failings came from "hard scrable". He had to work for everything he got. His father died months before he was born, and Clinton was able to perservere with his mother's guidance. Compare his story to Bush. Bush grew up in privilege and never had to stand on his own. A "Bush hater" you say?" Then why is Bush insisting on appearing in front of the 9/11 Commission with Unka' Dick by his side. Bush has never had to answer for any of his actions and is unworthy of the Presidency. You sheep may be foolish enough to reelect Bush, but his record of failure and arrogance is clear. It is time for a change.

:: DM1 4/05/2004 08:02:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, April 04, 2004 ::

Iraq: "Where is the Love?"

Unka' Dick said that you would welcome us. The Dauphin said that you deserved democracy. For the last year his Fraudulency's administration has told us that it's only a few who oppose U.S. policies in Iraq. What happened? My fellow white Americans let me be clear, "Some folks do not want to be like you." You have to understand that people in other places see you as insincere, cunning, and not to be trusted. Look at the problems we have between blacks and whites in the States and we have lived together for centuries. Hell, we celebrate the same God, the same American traditions and the same ground. Look how much we our at each others throat. That being the case, what makes you think that people from a civilization that is thousands of years older than ours are going to listen to you? If you insist on conquering greater Arabia (the Middle East) you have to realize that these people will continue to resist for centuries to come. They can not be brought into submission. George Bush #1 understood the folly of occupying Baghdad from a historical perspective. The metrics, as Donnie "the Flash" Rumsfield likes to say, have not changed. The Dauphin because of his privileged upbringing, uncurious mind, ignorance of history, inability to discern, arrogance, and hubris disregarded the reality of the situation. As such there are more than 600 U.S. families that have one less place at the table. More than 3,400 U.S. families are nursing broken relatives, many with multiple missing limbs. White folks wanted to show Saddam who was boss and you sure did. Now you are reaping the bitter dregs of your actions. You have to understand that most Arabs do not like the U.S. because of our unquestioned support for Israel, period. There is nothing that the U.S. can do to gain any significant support its Greater Arabia policies as long as it unconditionally supports Israel. Also, missiles and bombs can only get you so far. They took us to Baghdad and now they are useless. What was the mission as first stated? Get rid of WMDs and Saddam. Well there are and never were WMDs and Saddam is sitting in a cell, a broken old man. So why are we still in Iraq? Nation building? Democracy? Have you been watching the television. It looks like thousands of Iraqis are marching in the street killing Americans and each other. Can you say "Civil War"? Declare victory and go home. We can't afford to experience another year of "success" in Iraq.

:: DM1 4/04/2004 09:42:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 ::

The Problem with "Some" Conservatives

Here's an article from Counter Bias on Brit Hume:

*** COUNTERBIAS BRIEF *** MAR 28 2004 *** Last Update: Mar 28

FOX NEWS PUNDIT BRIT HUME TELLS FAMILIES OF DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS TO "JUST GET OVER IT"

* C O U N T E R B I A S . C O M E X C L U S I V E *

Brit Hume, a conservative news anchor on the right-wing Fox News Channel, continued his staunch support for the Republican Party when he told critics of President Bush--including families of American soldiers killed in his Iraq war--to "just get over it", on the 28 March 2004 edition of Fox News Sunday.

When asked on-air about the criticism Bush had received, from Democrats and families of American soldiers killed in Iraq, concerning jokes about non-existent WMD during a White House event, Mr. Hume unsurprisingly defended Bush, calling his harshly-criticized jokes a "good-natured performance".

Mr. Hume then said of those critical of Bush's WMD jokes, including families of American soldiers killed on the premise that such weapons existed, that "you have to feel like saying to people, 'Just get over it'."

Mr. Hume has long been apologetic to Republican interests, at one point playing tennis on White House courts as a guest of both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush while an 'impartial' Washington reporter for ABC News.

As a man whose son's life was lost to suicide, Mr. Hume would be expected to show more sensitivity to the lives of those Americans who have themselves lost children.

Chris Wallace and Juan Williams, two other Fox pundits appearing in the segment with Mr. Hume, attempted to talk over Mr. Hume during the last part of his monologue ("just get over it") at the realization of the possible damaging effect of his words.

The transcript is provided below:

WALLACE: And one that got a big laugh in the room that day -- and I must say, I still think it's funny -- the day after, some Democrats and the families of some American soldiers in Iraq, some who died in Iraq, said they were offended by this kidding about the missing weapons of mass destruction. Brit?

HUME: Well, we have a society in which one of the greatest things you can do is a platform to see victim status, and one of the qualifications for that is that you have these exquisitely tender feelings about things and sensibilities which are easily offended.

And in America today, if your sensibilities are offended by something that has happened, you get an enormous amount of credibility and are taken very seriously.

My own view of this is, the president's there poking fun at himself over what goes down, I think, as one of his failures. And I thought it was a good-natured performance, and it made him look good only in the sense that it showed he could poke fun at himself. But he certainly doesn't disguise the record on weapons of mass destruction.

And you have to feel like saying to people, "Just get over it."

Just get over it? What an a**hole. Six hundred soldiers dead, more than 3,300 wounded. Get over it? My nephew who is in the Marines is coming home from Okinawa in a couple of months and will spend about a month home. After that, he will be going to Iraq for at least six months. For Brit Hume to say what he said says more about him than he realizes. To the families of the next 600 hundred soldiers that may die in this insane war, I say "Never get over it." Brit Hume who never served in the military is a disgrace and he, like Hannity, Limbaugh, Delay, Haskert, Cheney never put on the country's uniform. Bush's National Guard stint was a farce. He knows that he received preferential treatment and is only where he is because of his daddy and his daddy's friends. Just a disgraceful bunch. It's very easy for some folks to be super patriots now, but where were you when it counted? By the way as I have stated before, I served in the Army from 1981 to 1985.

:: DM1 3/30/2004 02:26:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, March 28, 2004 ::

Another Blast From The Past (July 2003)

Memo to George W. Bush:

So you have moved on from the Iraq/Niger/Uranium issue. Well because you are not the King of the U.S. you will respond fully to all of the questions that are being raised. How cowardly was it to go to Africa after admitting that the Iraq/Africa/Uranium statement in your State of the Union to the Nation was false/inaccurate/a lie? Who are you to tell the American People that you have moved on from this issue when you were out of the country when the admission was made. Arrogance and hubris are not traits that are becoming to a president even for one who was appointed and not elected. You will move on from this issue only when you and your minions have given a full and complete accounting of all the statements made about Iraq and WMD. We, the taxpayers, pay your salary. You are accountable to us and in 2004 we will exercise our responsibility and vote you out of office. What a complete and utter disgrace!

:: Da' Militant 1 7/13/2003 10:49:37 AM

:: DM1 3/28/2004 04:40:00 AM [+] ::
...

A Blast from the Past (June 2003)

Memo to Sheep:

These are the words of leading conservative republicans in the matter of presidential lies and misleading statements:

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois),

“There is a visibility factor in the president's public acts, and those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for the law are hard to sweep under the rug...They reverberate, they ricochet all over the land and provide the worst possible example for our young people.”

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin)

“The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president's defenders…We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the president does not suffer the legal and constitutional consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing the president to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come…laws not enforced are open invitations for more serious and more criminal behavior.”

Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)

“It would be wrong for you to tell America's children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter.”

Steve Buyer (R- Indiana)

“I have also heard some senators from both sides of the aisle state publicly: I think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, to state publicly that you believe that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but for some reason you have this desire not to remove the president -- that desire, though, does not square with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate's precedents for removing federal judges for similar offenses.”

Rep. Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina, Now Senator)

“The president of the United States sets atop of the legal pyramid. If there's reasonable doubt about his ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land, our future would be better off if that individual is removed. And let me tell you where it all comes down to me. If you can go back and explain to your children and your constituents how you can be truthful and misleading at the same time, good luck.”

Of course, the president that they were speaking of was Bill Clinton. The president that their words apply to is George Bush. Lying about sex: Number of casualties - 0. Lying about war: 190+ killed, hundreds wounded and counting. Who are you going to believe Bush, or your own lying eyes?
:: Da' Militant 1 6/21/2003 01:41:35 PM [+] ::
...

Notice that the number of soldiers killed stand at more than 190. The number killed is now at 600. Now what?

:: DM1 3/28/2004 04:33:00 AM [+] ::
...

Update on Bill Frist's Claim that Richard Clarke Perjured Himself

Senate Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist accused Richard Clarke of perjury a couple of days ago. Let's look at what Frist is saying now. Here is a excerpt from an MSNBC news article:

Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke’s two appearances. But he said, “Until you have him under oath both times, you don’t know.”

Did you get that? Bill Frist accused Clarke of perjury and now says that he personally has no knowledge that Clarke perjured himself. Can you say, "A disgrace to the Senate?" What type of character does a person have to accuse someone of perjury and then turning around and admitting that they have no knowledge of what they speak? Dick Clarke is going to weather the storms because the Bush Administration and his flunkies know that he is telling the truth. The republicans spent eight years chasing Bill Clinton's gonads and three years covering up for an incompetent that had no business being appointed president. Folks like Clarke are tired of covering up for Bush's failures and so the "chickens are coming home to roost."

:: DM1 3/28/2004 04:27:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, March 26, 2004 ::

My E-Mail This Morning to Fox and Friends Concerning Condi Rice and the 9/11 Commission

There is only one reason that the incompetent National Security Advisor Condi Rice won't testify under oath at the 9/11 Commission Hearings. It's called "Perjury". She has been lying in many of her statements and it is painfully obvious. For all of the slings and arrows that Richard Clarke has suffered, he has testified under oath. If he is lying bring him up on perjury charges. There is nothing stopping the feckless Bush Administration and the rest of the republican conservative hacks from investigating Clarke. I doubt that they will. It is far better to call Clarke names especially when you can't under oath refute his statements. I see that Oliver North is now on the show rebutting Clarke. This is the same guy that lied to Congress under oath. Fair and balanced? Yeah, right.

:: DM1 3/26/2004 07:20:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, March 20, 2004 ::

Revisting WMDs

For those of you sheep who still bow down to the Dauphin, ask yourselves, "How come none of the WMD mentioned by anyone in the Bush Adminitsration has been found?" Now as one who was against the invasion in March 2003, I still hoped that some type of WMD would be found because the credibility of the country was at stake. Now for all the hundreds of tons of chemical, biological, and conventional WMDs that were confirmed by the Bush Administration, none have been found. I could understand if instead of hundreds of tons we found several tons, but we have found nothing! Zip! Somebody's been lying, not misleading, lying. If Wild Bill can be impeached for lying about oral sex, then we should alrady have drafted the 20th article of impeachment for His Fraudulency. That we haven't is an indictment on the moral failings and lack of integrity of the people of this nation. I guess if you are white AND conservative AND weathly then there are no consequences for your criminal activities. Excuse me, "policies."

:: DM1 3/20/2004 10:13:00 AM [+] ::
...

The Problem with "Dick" Cheney

Here is the problem I have with Dick Cheney:

Elizabeth Cheney, Deferment Baby
How Dick Cheney dodged the Vietnam draft.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 2:09 PM PT

"[T]he Senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security," Vice President Dick Cheney said during a March 17 visit to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum. He was talking, of course, about John Kerry, the putative Democratic presidential nominee. During the past three years, we've all become better acquainted with Vice President Cheney's judgment and attitude toward national security, which are a good deal more hawkish than Kerry's. A widely observed irony is that the dovish Kerry saw combat in Vietnam while the hawkish Cheney accepted a series of student and family-related draft deferments. Cheney's unself-consciousness about this is (or at least was) so pronounced that in 1989 he told George C. Wilson of the Washington Post, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

What Chatterbox never realized until recently, however, is that Cheney's eldest daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, likely owes her very existence to her father's avoidance of the Vietnam draft.

The Washington Post's Phil McCombs made the intimate calculations in a profile published in April 1991, when Cheney was defense secretary. The timeline:

Aug. 29, 1964: Dick and Lynne Cheney marry.

May 19, 1965: The Selective Service classifies Dick Cheney 1-A, "available immediately for military service."

July 28, 1965: President Lyndon Johnson says draft calls will be doubled.

Oct. 26, 1965: The Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.

Jan. 19, 1966: The Selective Service reclassifies Dick Cheney 3-A, "deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family," because his wife is pregnant with their first child.

July 28, 1966: Elizabeth Cheney is born.

Jan. 30, 1967: Dick Cheney turns 26 and therefore becomes ineligible for the draft.

Dedicated students of obstetrics will observe that Elizabeth Cheney's birth date falls precisely nine months and two days after the Selective Service publicly revoked its policy of not drafting childless husbands. This would seem to indicate that the Cheneys, though doubtless planning to have children sometime, were seized with an untamable passion the moment Dick Cheney became vulnerable to the Vietnam draft. And acted on it. Carpe diem!

In a nutshell, you have a wuss trying call out a combat veteran on national defense. A candy-a*s that was too cowardly to voluteer or be drafted. For all of John Kerry's "issues" and he does have some "issues", I will trust John Kerry, who, by the way, VOLUNTEERED for service during Vietnam, to take care of the national defense instead of a weak and cowardly windbag who now does not mind sending other young men and women to their deaths. What an utter fraud! As a republican, I am truly disgusted by the hypocrites and liars that now masquerade as republicans. It started with the Reagan Administration and has taken full flight under the Fraudulancy's Administration. The state of the country reflects the poison that this Administration has been dispensing for three years. Give me the lyin' Bill Clinton any day. The only thing that they ever proved that he lied about was his triste with Monica. However, this current administration relishes in lying to the American public openly and with great conviction. I only hope the the rule of law finally catches up with these weasels and show them want true "conviction" really is. I'm betting on at lest probation and 200 hours of community service!

:: DM1 3/20/2004 10:10:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 ::

The Chickens are Still Coming Home

I've been away for awhile working and taking care of business. I was growing bored of pointing out the failure that is the Bush Administration, but a friend of mine threatened to drop me from his favorite links. Well here goes. The most ridiculous situation out there now is the Bush Administration's insistance that John Kerry come clean and name the foreign leaders that secretly want Bush gone. What? Does John Kerry really have to state the obvious? Isn't it clear that countries like Spain can't stand Bush or his incompetence in leading the so-called "War on Terror"? How about Bush coming clean in front of the 9/11 Commission? How about Iraq? How about Medicare? John Kerry had it right when he referred to folks as liars and crooks. Since he didn't explicitly name Bush or anyone in his administration, their indignation at his comments suggest that they believed that he was speaking of them. Well George for once you have it right. The lies have been so in your face that folks have been having a hard time confronting you and your crowd because it's difficult for them to believe that you could be so in your face about it. Well now it looks like you are facing a democrat that has grown a spine thanks to Howard Dean. You have been rolling out the big guns and shooting yourself in the foot. You have no one, but yourself to blame. You were at a 90% approval rating and started flying to close to the Sun. It's time to pack it in and go clear some more "brush".

:: DM1 3/16/2004 06:59:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, February 14, 2004 ::

What kind of Slime is Ann Coulter?

Check this out! I got this from Bartcop.com:

Dueling Quotes

"Max Cleland is the Democrats' designated hysteric about George Bush's National Guard service.
A triple amputee and Vietnam veteran, Cleland is making the rounds on talk TV, basking in the
affection of liberals who have suddenly become jock-sniffers for war veterans and working himself
into a lather about President Bush's military service...if we're going to start delving into exactly who
did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero
who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam. Cleland lost three limbs in an accident
during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on
the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a
grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman ? or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors."
Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam."
--Ann Coulter, senior slut in a party of whores,Attribution

"Ann Coulter shouldn't even be allowed to speak Max Cleland's name. And she shouldn't be allowed to get
away with smearing him in order to prop up a lying fratboy coward who hid out in the National Guard and
then couldn't even bother to show up for work. There's no bravery in lying about a man who showed up to
do his job and paid the price that Cleland did. And it's too bad that Cleland doesn't have a leg left to kick
Coulter's skinny ass back to Connecticut. I'd pay to see that. I'd pay a lot."
-- tbogg, "Ann Coulter- Lying Bitch" Attribution

Pretty pathetic isn't it. For all the times I've heard conservatives call liberals and democrats unpatriotic, I never heard a liberal or a democrat slime a triple amputee because they disagreed with their position. Remember that Ann Coulter is viewed as a leading conservative. Conservatives use to look like William F. Buckley and could actually engage in intelligent discourse. Now you have yellers, whiners, screamers and the type of thoroughly unpleasant people who can only stand to be around people like themselves. What a shame!

:: DM1 2/14/2004 08:40:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, February 08, 2004 ::

Condi Rice

So, Condi Rice is going to tesify in front of the 9/11 Commission. However, she will not be under oath. Why not? Can you say "perjury"? And, Bill Clinton was impeached for not telling the truth about Monica. Can America really afford to have the Bush Administration running the country? If what happened to Bill Clinton is the standard, then I have one word to say, "Impeachment".

:: DM1 2/08/2004 01:22:00 AM [+] ::
...

Quick take on the Janet Jackson Controversy

I see that CBS may reinvite Janet Jackson back to the Grammys. Considering that the Grammys are going to sport rapper 50 cent and play him up, it's only natural that they change their attitude toward Janet. Fifty is straight up thug gangster and talks about raunchy sex and shooting folks. Now I don't have a beef with 50 because I know of what he speaks, but if he's alright with CBS then Janet should be, too. How about a little perspective CBS? One more thing, Michael Powell as head of the FCC you are a big fraud and should resign. Stop frontin' and show some discernment.

:: DM1 2/08/2004 01:04:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 ::

A New Terrorist Threat?

So the toxic chemical ricin was mailed to Senator Bill Frist's senate office and the White House. Why am I suspicious of these events? Could it be that someone is trying to inspire fear in the populace and invoke sympathy and support for Bush and the republicans? Nonsense? Ridiculous? Think about the weapons of mass destruction arguments made by Bush. Would someone actually do something so underhanded? Well ask yourself would someone make accusations about a nonexistent nuclear threat to the country? The answer is yes because that is exactly what Dick Cheney did prior to tha start of the Iraq war. Let's see were the investigation of the incidents takes us.

:: DM1 2/03/2004 09:38:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, January 25, 2004 ::

Personal Responsibility

1. Despite repeated statements to the contrary no WMD have been found in Iraq
2. Dick Cheney continues to insist that a tie between Saddam and Osama exists and that Saddam had WMD
3. A computer was seized from Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist as part of an ongoing investigation in the cyber theft by republicans of sensitive democrat memos
4. Rush Limbaugh is alleged to be guilty of at least 10 felonies related to his drug use
5. Bill Bennett admits to losing up to $8 million by gambling
6. Sean Hannity says that he did not serve in the military because he was not "called to serve". Hannity is in his early forties and only had to go to the nearest recruiting station to join up when he was young.
7. Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay says that he was unable to serve in the military during the Vietnam Era because so many minorities were voluteering and were taking up all the available slots

These are just seven examples of the the hypocrisy and immorality of the group that would have the rest of us believe that they are the "chosen ones". How come white conservatives have one standard for democrats, liberals and blacks and a different standard for other white conservatives. They know full well that if a democrat, a liberal, or a prominent black were engaged in any of the circumstances described above the conservative right would scream endlessly. However, when another white male republican conservative is engaged in dubious behavior the issue is totally ignored. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

:: DM1 1/25/2004 12:08:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, January 16, 2004 ::

The Coward

I understand that Bush appointed Charles Pickering to the Appeals Court as a recess appointment. Never mind that he intervened on behalf of a white man who was guilty of burning a cross on a black couple's lawn. What a coward this fraud of a president is. And conservatives wonder why black folks were picketing Bush at Martin Luther King's grave. Bush stands for the opposite of everything King stood for. What an utter coward and a disgrace. Say what you will about blacks, but some white folks are living in a white world and damn everybody else!

:: DM1 1/16/2004 10:29:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 ::

Why White Conservatives Love George W. Bush

It was just yesterday that a group on whiny, self-righteous hypocrites were telling us about the failings on Bill Clinton. They were especially upset about his "lies". It's been documented on numerous occassions that Bush "lied". Examples are the Iraq/Niger/Uranium fiasco; Saddam had ties to Osama; he would change the tone of the political discourse; etc. However, those same whiny, self-righteous hypocrites are silent in their condemnation of Bush. Why? How about Bush makes white conservative feel like they did in the good old days when white reigned supreme. Why can't a democrat running for president win in the South? A democrat does not appeal to the white conservative, confederate flag-waving bigot who never did like the changes that took place in the 1960s and 1970s.

:: DM1 1/13/2004 08:17:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Monday, January 12, 2004 ::

Paul O'Neill

Paul O'Neill is a "Judas", a "Brutus" and a "disgruntled former employee" Notice I didn't say that he was a liar. Notice that the Bush Administration hasn't called him a liar, either.

:: DM1 1/12/2004 10:10:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Monday, December 29, 2003 ::

Excerpt from an article listing total casaulties in Iraq

The total number of wounded soldiers and medical evacuations from the war in Iraq is nearing 11,000,
according to new Pentagon data provided in response to a request from UPI.

The military has made 8,581 medical evacuations from Operation Iraqi Freedom for non-hostile causes
in addition to the 2,273 wounded -- a total of 10,854, according to the new data. The Pentagon says that 457 troops have died.

The Pentagon's casualty update for Operation Iraqi Freedom listed on its Web site, however,
does not reflect thousands of the evacuations.

It is a toll the country has not seen since Vietnam

:: DM1 12/29/2003 05:22:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, December 26, 2003 ::

Who Said It?

"So many minority youths had volunteered that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself."

Sounds like very cowardly and ridiculous statement doesn't it? Should someone who makes a statement like that be trusted to do the right thing. To be honest and above board? The answer is "No". Who is this coward and racialist? Why it's none other than "Mister Coward" himself: House Majority Leader Tom Delay! How's that for moral and christian values, Republicans?

:: DM1 12/26/2003 12:14:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 ::

"Latest U.S. Casualty Count"

Killed: 464
Wounded in Combat: 2,657

Total Casualties: 3,121

Just remember that these figures do not include soldiers hospitalized for illness, mental disorders, and non-combat injuries. These numbers total in the thousands, also.

:: DM1 12/24/2003 03:34:00 AM [+] ::
...

"You Can't Handle The Truth"

Word is that Condi Rice does not want to be placed under oath if she is called to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission" I repeat, it is alleged that Condi Rice does not want to swear to tell the truth under oath. Remember that right after 9/11, she suggested that no one could have predicted that terrorists would hijack planes and crash them into buildings. Intelligence data that was readily available to her indicated other wise. In fact, there was many years of data that showed terrorists might try to hijack planes for various purposes. There were many who hounded Bill Clinton for many years for lying about the Monica Affair. Evidence exists that directly contradicts statements mde by National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice on behalf of George Bush. Should she and Bush get a break because neither one was under oath when Rice made her statements? If Rice has to testify under oath at the 9/11 Commission will she have to admit that her previous statements to the American public were lies? Also, the Commission may ask Bush, Cheney, Clinton, and Gore to testify at the hearing. The catch is that none of the four will be placed under oath. Shouldn't these supposed "servants of the America People" be required to tell the absolute truth about what they knew prior to 9/11? Ah, "You Can't Handle The Truth!"

:: DM1 12/24/2003 03:15:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 ::

The Rule of Law and Rush Limbaugh

There is nothing more disgusting than to hear a blowhard scream about the rule of law for eight years when his ox is not being gored. Now that It's Limbaugh's feet instead of Bill Clinton's being held to the fire, Limbaugh is whining and suggesting that he is a "victim" of the government's heavy boot. This ass has been railing against the victimization mentality of mostly blacks and gays. Now that he has been caught engaging in illegal drug activity, Limbaugh wants to change the rules. He says that Bill Clinton didn't have to disclose his medical records so why should he? Now isn't it ironic that this windbag is now trying to use Clinton as part of his defense? Hey, Limbaugh about that rule of law, did you purchase prescription drugs illegally. You know the truth and a court of law is not required. Why don't you "tell the truth"? Why don't you require of yourself that which you required of Bill Clinton. Just tell the truth. The only positive thing out of this is that you have been exposed as a liar and a criminal who is most likely guilty of many felonies in connection with your illegal drug use. What a phony. I hope that you are given a full dose of the "rule of law". You certainly deserve it!

:: DM1 12/23/2003 01:13:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, December 21, 2003 ::

More on the Capture of Saddam

Article detailing the capture? of Sadam By Foreign Editor David Pratt:

Saddam’s capture was the best present George Bush could have hoped for, and then Gaddafi handed a propaganda gift to Blair. But nothing’s ever that simple

It was exactly one week ago at 3.15pm Baghdad time, when a beaming Paul Bremer made that now-famous announce ment: “Ladies and gentlemen, we got him!”
Saddam Hussein: High Value Target Number One. The Glorious Leader. The Lion of Babylon had been snared. Iraq’s most wanted – the ace of spades – had become little more than an ace in the hole.

In Baghdad’s streets, Kalashnikov bullets rained down in celebration. In the billets of US soldiers, there were high fives, toasts and cigars. In the Jordanian capital Amman, an elderly woman overcome by grief broke down in tears and died. Inside a snow-blanketed White House, George W Bush prepared to address the nation.

“There’s an end to everything,” said a sombre Safa Saber al-Douri, a former Iraqi air force pilot, now a grocer in al-Dwar, the town where only hours earlier one of the greatest manhunts in history had ended under a polystyrene hatch in a six foot deep “spider hole.”

But just how did that endgame come about? Indeed, who exactly were the key players in what until then had been a frustrating and sometimes embarrassing hunt for a former dictator with a $25 million (£14m) bounty on his head?

For 249 days there was no shortage of US expertise devoted to the hunt. But the Pentagon has always remained tight-lipped about those individuals and groups involved, such as Task Force 20, said to be America’s most elite covert unit, or another super-secret team known as Greyfox, which specialises in radio and telephone surveillance.

Saddam, of course, was never likely to use the phone, and the best chance of locating him would always be as a result of informers or home-grown Iraqi intelligence. On this and their collaboration with anti-Saddam groups the Americans have also remained reticent.

Enter one Qusrat Rasul Ali, otherwise known as the lion of Kurdistan. A leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Rasul Ali was once tortured by Saddam’s henchmen, but today is chief of a special forces unit dedicated to hunting down former Ba’athist regime leaders.

Rasul Ali’s unit had an impressive track record. It was they who last August, working alone, arrested Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan in Mosul, northern Iraq. Barely a month earlier in the al-Falah district of the same town, the PUK is believed to have played a crucial role in the pinpointing and storming of a villa that culminated in the deaths of Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay.

In that mixed district of Mosul where Arabs, Kurds and Turkemen live side by side, PUK informers went running to their leader Jalal Talabani’s nearest military headquarters to bring him news on the exact location of the villa where both Uday and Qusay had taken shelter.

Armed with the information, Talabani made a beeline for US administration offices in Baghdad, where deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz was based for a week’s stay in Iraq at the time.

The Kurdish leader and US military chiefs conferred and decided that PUK intelligence would go ahead and secretly surround the Zeidan villa and install sensors and eavesdropping devices. The Kurdish agents were instructed to prepare the site for the US special forces operation to storm the building on July 22.

American officials later said they expected that the $30m bounty promised by their government for the capture or death of the Hussein sons would be paid. Given their direct involvement in providing the exact location and intelligence necessary, no doubt Talabani’s PUK operatives could lay claim to the sum, but no confirmation of any delivery or receipt of the cash has ever been made.

The PUK and Rasul Ali’s special “Ba’athist hunters” have, it seems, been doing what the Americans have consistently failed to do. In an interview with the PUK’s al-Hurriyah radio station last Wednesday, Adil Murad, a member of the PUK’s political bureau, confirmed that the Kurdish unit had been pursuing fugitive Ba’athists for the past months in Mosul, Samarra, Tikrit and areas to the south including al-Dwar where Saddam was eventually cornered. Murad even says that the day before Saddam’s capture he was tipped off by PUK General Thamir al-Sultan, that Saddam would be arrested within the next 72 hours.

Clearly the Kurdish net was closing on Saddam, and PUK head Jalal Talabani and Rasul Ali were once again in the running for US bounty – should any be going.

It was at about 10.50am Baghdad time on last Saturday when US intel ligence says it got the tip it was looking for. But it was not until 8pm, with the launch of Operation Red Dawn, that they finally began to close in on the prize.

The US media reported that the tip-off came from an Iraqi man who was arrested during a raid in Tikrit, and even speculated that he could get part of the bounty. “It was intelligence, actionable intelligence,” claimed Lt General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq. “It was great analytical work.”

But the widely held view that Kurdish intelligence was the key to the operation was supported in a statement released last Sunday by the Iraqi Governing Council. Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, said that Rasul Ali and his PUK special forces unit had provided vital information and more.

Last Saturday, as the US operation picked up speed, the Fourth Infantry Division moved into the area surrounding two farms codenamed Wolverine 1 and Wolverine 2 near al-Dwar, the heart of the Saddam heartland – a military town where practically every man is a military officer past or present. It is said to have a special place in Saddam’s sentiments because it was from here that he swam across the Tigris River when he was a dissident fleeing arrest in the 1960s.

Every year on August 28, the town marks Saddam’s escape with a swimming contest . In 1992, Saddam himself attended the race. It was won by a man called Qais al-Nameq. It was al-Nameq’s farmhouse – Wolverine 2 – that about 600 troops, including engineers, artillery and special forces, surrounded, cutting off all roads for about four or five miles around.

Next to a sheep pen was a ramshackle orange and white taxi, which US officials say was probably used to ferry Saddam around while he was on the run, sometimes moving every three or four hours.

Inside the premises was a walled compound with a mud hut and small lean-to. There US soldiers found the camouflaged hole in which Saddam was hiding.

It was 3.15pm Washington time when Donald Rumsfeld called George W Bush at Camp David. “Mr President, first reports are not always accurate,” he began. “But we think we may have him.”

First reports – indeed the very first report of Saddam’s capture – were also coming out elsewhere. Jalal Talabani chose to leak the news and details of Rasul Ali’s role in the deployment to the Iranian media and to be interviewed by them.

By early Sunday – way before Saddam’s capture was being reported by the mainstream Western press – the Kurdish media ran the following news wire:

“Saddam Hussein, the former President of the Iraqi regime, was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace. Qusrat’s team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!”

By the time Western press agencies were running the same story, the emphasis had changed, and the ousted Iraqi president had been “captured in a raid by US forces backed by Kurdish fighters.”

Rasul Ali himself, meanwhile, had already been on air at the Iranian satellite station al-Alam insisting that his “PUK fighters sealed the area off before the arrival of the US forces”.

By late Sunday as the story went global, the Kurdish role was reduced to a supportive one in what was described by the Pentagon and US military officials as a “joint operation”. The Americans now somewhat reluctantly were admitting that PUK fighters were on the ground alongside them , while PUK sources were making more considered statements and playing down their precise role.

So just who did get to Saddam first, the Kurds or the Americans? And if indeed it was a joint operation would it have been possible at all without the intelligence and on-the-ground participation of Rasul Ali and his special forces?

If the PUK themselves pulled off Saddam’s capture, there would be much to gain from taking the $25m bounty and any political guarantees the Americans might reward them with to keep schtum. What’s more, Jalal Talabani’s links to Tehran have always worried Washington, and having his party grab the grand prize from beneath their noses would be awkward to say the least.

“It’s mutually worth it to us and the Americans. We need assurances for the future and they need the kudos of getting Saddam,” admitted a Kurdish source on condition of anonymity. It would be all to easy to dismiss the questions surrounding the PUK role as conspiracy theory. After all, almost every major event that affects the Arab world prompts tales that are quickly woven into intricate shapes and patterns, to demonstrate innocence, seek credit or apportion blame. Saddam’s capture is no exception.

Of the numerous and more exotic theories surrounding events leading to Saddam’s arrest, one originates on a website many believe edited by former Israeli intelligence agents, but which often turns up inside information about the Middle East that proves to be accurate.

According to Debka.com, there is a possibility that Saddam was held for up to three weeks in al-Dwar by a Kurdish splinter group while they negotiated a handover to the Americans in return for the $25m reward. This, the writers say would explain his dishevelled and disorientated appearance.

But perhaps the mother of all conspiracy theories, is the one about the pictures distributed by the Americans showing the hideout with a palm tree behind the soldier who uncov ered the hole where Saddam was hiding. The palm carried a cluster of pre-ripened yellow dates, which might suggest that Saddam was arrested at least three months earlier, because dates ripen in the summer when they turn into their black or brown colour.

Those who buy into such an explanation conclude that Saddam’s capture was stage-managed and his place of arrest probably elsewhere. All fanciful stuff. But as is so often the case, the real chain of events is likely to be far more mundane.

In the end serious questions remain about the Kurdish role and whether at last Sunday’s Baghdad press conference, Paul Bremer was telling the whole truth . Or is it a case of “ladies and gentlemen we got him,” – with a little more help from our Kurdish friends than might be politically expedient to admit?

:: DM1 12/21/2003 02:14:00 PM [+] ::
...

Was Saddam Capture a Photo Op?

Some foreign newspapers are reporting that Saddam was captured by the Kurds prior to being turned over to the U.S. Ridiculous you say? In early December Representative Ray La Hood a republican, responded to a question by a reporter regarding the potential capture of saddam by saying that he was very confident that Saddam would be apprehended shortly. the reporter asked La Hood why he thought that. La Hood was coy in his response and didn't answer. What did La Hood know? Here is the article from Pantagraph.Com

Tuesday, December 2, 2003
LaHood: Hussein's capture imminent

Pantagraph Staff

BLOOMINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood held his thumb and forefinger slightly apart and said, "We're this close" to catching Saddam Hussein.
Once that's accomplished, Iraqi resistance will fall apart, said the five-term Republican congressman from Peoria who serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

A member of The Pantagraph editorial board -- not really expecting an answer -- asked LaHood for more details, saying, "Do you know something we don't?"

"Yes I do," replied LaHood.

LaHood spent an hour at the newspaper Monday, discussing the war on terror, the 2004 elections, Central Illinois' regional economic development and his less-than-enthusiastic appraisal of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's performance.

The comment about the deposed Iraqi president came while LaHood discussed next year's elections.

The congressman said he's been disappointed with U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald and believes the Republican senator isn't seeking a second term because "he can't get the votes."

LaHood hopes his party can hold the Senate seat because, he said, "President Bush is popular south of I-80, and that will help our Republican Senate candidate."

The economy -- barring a cataclysmic event like the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- will be central to the presidential race, he said.

"People working, making money, taking care of their families, health-care costs" -- those are the key issues, LaHood said.

He said the war is a major issue, but not as important as the economy.

LaHood said polls still show most Americans support the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Then he added, "Once we get Saddam ... and we're this close."

He said members of Congress who return from trips to the war zone all say the Iraqi people are very thankful to the United States and added, "You don't hear about that too often."

:: DM1 12/21/2003 02:00:00 PM [+] ::
...

Safer?

Howard Dean was crucified by the Bush Adminstration, the pundits, and some of the democratic presidential candidates. Dean had the nerve to suggest that the capture of Saddam did not make America safer. Well today the terror level threat is being raised to "Orange", or "High". It appears that the Bush Administration may have validated Dean's assessment. If not then Bush should explain that if capturing Saddam made us safer then why only a week after his capture is the terror threat being elevated. Could it be that we should have been spending these last two years focusing on the real mastermind behind 9/11? Could it be that Osama was, is, and will be our biggest threat until to apprehend him? The answer of course is yes. Christmas is only days away, let's hope that our use of force thus far has been properly focused.

:: DM1 12/21/2003 01:52:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 ::

Of War and Money

The "probable" next President of the United States is ... George W. Bush. He doesn't have Osama, but he has Saddam. He doesn't have an 11,000 stock market, but he has a 10,000 stock market. So what if he told a bunch of lies. Who is going to call him on them? Obviously, Bush is truly a "teflon-coated" president. Where are you now Howard Dean? Will you stick to your guns? Will you challenge Bush and his versions of the truth? Stay tuned sports fans!

:: DM1 12/17/2003 06:09:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, November 28, 2003 ::

:: DM1 11/28/2003 03:48:00 PM [+] ::
...

Alright Sports Fans, I'm back. Every now and then I have to take a break because it gets hectic trying to point out all of the lies, distortions, and deviations of the Bush administration. So many inconsistencies so little time. Bush just flew to Iraq and the Bush cabal, pundits, Faux News, and the rest are telling us how wonderful and brave he is. To my recollection, the Iraqis don't have an air force so I don't think that Bush had to worry about a dogfight. Also, I am sure that there was a very large complement of jet fighters, AWACs, helicopter gunships, and soldiers on the ground to prevent any attempt to shoot down Air Force One. So as quiet as it's kept Bush did do the right thing, but he was not parachuting in to hostile territory only armed with a K-bar (a military knife). To lionize someone for doing want they ought to do is not only ridiculous, but this way of thinking continues to lower the bar as to what is truly extraordinary and exemplary.

The fact that Bush's visit was kept in the strictest secrecy belies a crucial point that he and his minions constantly make: That while Iraq does have some security problems, things are going reasonably well. If Bush has to fly into Baghdad International Airport in complete secrecy doesn't that suggest that some serious issues involving security remain. Not small pockets of resistance mind you, but a committed band of guerrillas bent on killing as many American soldiers as possible, or die trying. It's just that simple. Now the question is what are we prepared to do?

:: DM1 11/28/2003 03:46:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Monday, November 03, 2003 ::

Except from today's column by Tim Harper of the Toronto Star:

Lynn Cutler, a Democratic strategist and former official in Bill Clinton's White House, says this is the first time in history that bodies have been brought home under cover of secrecy.

"It feels like Vietnam when Lyndon Johnson was accused of hiding the body bags ....

"This is a big government and a big Pentagon and they could have someone there to meet these bodies as they come back to the country."

But today's military doesn't even use the words "body bags" — a term in common usage during the Vietnam War, when 58,000 Americans died.

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon began calling them "human remains pouches" and it now refers to them as "transfer tubes."

Transfer tubes? That's how we dignify are dead soldiers? Transfer tubes? Are the dead soldiers just material to be removed when no longer functional? Where are the honorable funerals of our brave dead soldiers? Don't we at least owe it to them to acknowledge their sacifices publicly? Who were they fighting for? They were fighting for us. George Bush has not attended a single funeral according to the "Bush Watchers". Not one personal tribute from a man who has sent them to their deaths. If they were good enough for Bush on the aircraft carrier "alive" , then surely he can stop his fund raising of tens of millions of dollars and pay proper tribute to at least one of our dead soldiers. For all of Bill Clinton's faults (I'm sure that you conservative republicans can name them all and then some), he attended public funerals of our dead soldiers. Even the lying, draft dodging, womanizer had the decency, perspective, and courage to show his face and pay tribute to the young soldiers that he sent to their deaths. That is leadership and that is what George Bush is sorely lacking.

:: DM1 11/03/2003 06:10:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, November 02, 2003 ::

The Faux News Network

Good News from Iraq today. The Iraqis have more electricity and more schools are open. Oh yeah, a chinook helicopter was shot down today killing 13 U.S. soldiers and wounding 20. Iraqis are going back to work and experiencing democracy. Oh yeah, the number of U.S. killed is approaching 400 and total casualties are close to 2,500. More Iraqi policemen are on the street and the Iraqi army is being retrained. Oh, yeah, none of the people who are keeping the troops in harm's way in Iraq have family members in harm's way. I've got a nephew in the Marines stationed in Okinawa and another in the Air Force in Germany. Is it too much to ask that the people responsible for keeping our troops in harm's way contribute the blood of their families. I did my time in the Army for four years and am sick of the B.S. shoved down our throats daily. Bill Clinton is termed a reprobate because he wouldn't come clean on oral sex. George Bush is getting our young people killed, maimed, and wounded for a failed "nation-building" strategy. The Faux News Network has some explaining to do. FNN and it's minions had day after day of critical analysis and stories involving Bill Clinton and his penis, however, for this failed Bush administration they cover up , blame others, and hail Bush. What utter frauds. Personal responsibility and accountability well that's only reserved for democrats, black criminals, welfare mothers, arab terrorists, and illegal immigrants. When are white conservatives going to hold Bush and his crowd to the same standards?

:: DM1 11/02/2003 06:32:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, October 31, 2003 ::

Modern White Racism

It's no longer fashionable to wear white sheets in public, but that doesn't stop the true believers like Haley Barbour the republican candidate for Governor of Mississippi.

:: DM1 10/31/2003 07:53:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 ::

Another Blast From The Past

[10/16/2002 7:35:59 PM | Jamie Starr]
Ten Questions for the Chichkenhawks:

If Saddam is such an immediate threat answer the following questions:

1. Why did Bush take a 30-day vacation in August?
2. Why is not the threat assessment at RED, the highest alert?
3. Why now a month before the mid-term elections and not earlier in the year?
4. How many casualities are acceptable?
5. What are the costs?
6. What is the time frame?
7. How long the occupation?
8. What if Iraq attacks Israel and Israel strikes back with nuclear weapons?
9. What happens if Syria helps Iraq?
10. What happens if the democrats take Congress?

:: DM1 10/28/2003 10:43:00 PM [+] ::
...

A Blast From The Past

[10/16/2002 7:34:32 PM | Jamie Starr]
Memo to Dick Gephardt:

Dear Congressman Gephardt,

I am very disappointed in your actions the other day in giving the appointed president another photo-op. I am a republican and I am amazed that you still don't get it. The current administration cares nothing about you or your position. It only cares that you have "cut" Senator Daschle off at the knees and will now use you to further republican goals. I do not like the direction that this country is taking. I, too, served my country in the Army for four years and as veterans both you and I have a duty to protect this country from foreign enemies and domestic incompetence. You have failed many in your party and many others who are looking for men of courage to stand up against an administration that is bent on war at any cost. I understand that you have visions of running for president in 2004. Well, to win you need to show true leadership. The only thing I saw the other day was a man who stepped on his principles and betrayed many in his party. I see that it is up to those of us who truly understand what Bush and Cheney to carry the burden to ensure that their misguided politics do not continue past 2004. You have made that effort more difficult with your recent actions. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and I will vote for him in 2004. He is showing courage, vision, and leadership and I only hope that some of his qualities begin to rub off on you.

:: DM1 10/28/2003 10:42:00 PM [+] ::
...

The Plight of George W. Bush

I've noticed recently that George Bush's mother has been out trashing those that criticize her son. I think that Mother Bush needs to step back and take a deep breath. What people are criticizing is his disasterous performance as president. Some people do indeed hate George Bush, but he had a 90% approval rating after 9/11, the media never uttered a discouraging word, and the democrats, at least most of them took a dive. All Bush had to do was build on the good will that came his way after the attacks. What did he do? Besides attacking the Taliban, which most of the American People and the rest of the world supported, including the French, Bush began to believe that he had a blank check to do as he pleases. The Congress and the conservative right have enabled him. Then what did he do, I think that you need to performance

:: DM1 10/28/2003 05:47:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Monday, October 27, 2003 ::

Blast from the past:

Memo to Sheep:

United States Military Casualities in Iraq as of March 20, 2003:

Killed: 353
Wounded: 2014

Total casualities 2,367

Had enough, yet? The person that you voted for as president is still telling you that you need to hear more of the "good news". Is there any news he can give you that will make the 2,367 casualities and counting anymore acceptable? Your president is telling you that the Iraqis are happy that we are there. We have over 2,300 casualities at a time when your president says we are being welcomed. I hope for you sake that they don't begin to hate us!

:: DM1 10/27/2003 08:21:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, October 18, 2003 ::

Where Did The Time Go

Where did the time go? Bob Hope died a few months ago at the age of 100. Where did the time go. I remember watch Bob Hope's USO tours during the Vietnam War when I was a kid. I grew up watching The real movie gangsters: Edward G. Robison, Humphrey Bogart, and my main man, James Cagney. They were all born in the 1890s! Leave It to Beaver, The Andy Griffith Show, Dennis The Manace. All of the children in these shows are now over 50 or pushing 50. The Beatles split up 33 years ago! What? How did that happen? I used to watch the Jimmy Durante Show, Red Skelton, and Dean Martin. They are all gone. The Rat Pack is no more and the only surviving member, Joey Bishop, is at least 80, I think. as you can see most of my memories relate to television. Most kids raised in the 60s and 70s will tell you that television was what we did. School, sports, and television, that was how we lived. I remember the 30th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1971, the Kent State Shootings, the Patty Hearst kidnapping and the Lyons Sisters. The Lyons Sisters? They were two little girls, 12 and 10, who disappeared in 1975 on their way to Wheaton Plaza in Wheaton Maryland. They have never been seen or heard from again. Twenty-eight years have past since that day. How does time slip by so rapidly? One minute you are six years old in first grade and the next minute you are past 40 and wondering where the time went. There's no point to this post. I just wonder where all the time went.

:: DM1 10/18/2003 06:16:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, October 17, 2003 ::

Getting to the Bottom of 9/11

Here's a piece of an article by Eric Boehlert in today's Salon:

Is the 9/11 commission getting tough?
Subpoena against FAA suggests signs of life -- and victims' families are suddenly hopeful.- - - - - - - - - - - -

Oct. 16, 2003 | The national 9/11 commission's decision Wednesday to issue subpoenas against the Federal Aviation Administration, after it failed to hand over key investigative documents, may signal a new get-tough phase for the inquiry, as the commission tries to unravel the failures that made possible the Sept. 11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000.

Makes you wonder why the Bush Administration is dragging it's feet in turning over documents. Be it the FAA or other government agencies, the Administration obviously has put out the word to slow walk information. The Commission's deadline is May 2004. What a sad and pathetic little people the Bushies are. Bush's minions have always put the blame for 9/11 on Bill Clinton, but it's not Clinton that is holding up the investigation. Too bad that the Commission is not investigating Clinton's genitals because then the Bushies would have plenty of documentation complete with pictures.

Wake up sheep, they are coming to get you!

:: DM1 10/17/2003 06:12:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Thursday, October 16, 2003 ::

Thank God for Republicans Looking Out For The Troops

From Maureen Dowd's latest column:

On Monday, Representative George Nethercutt Jr., a Republican from Washington State who visited Iraq, chimed in to help the White House: "The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable. It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day." The congressman puts the casual back in casualty.

:: DM1 10/16/2003 11:19:00 PM [+] ::
...

Give Bush his $87 Billion

Give Bush his $87 billion.

From a column by Monica Perin:

Secrecy shrouds Halliburton hiring frenzy at Houston hotel

Houston Business Journal
A pair of Houston pest control contractors are among hundreds of American and foreign workers being recruited by a division of Houston-based Halliburton to work on the rebuilding of Iraq.

The recruitment operation is headquartered at the Wyndham Greenspoint Hotel and the Holiday Inn Intercontinental on John F. Kennedy Boulevard.

KBR, formerly Kellogg Brown & Root, is recruiting a wide array of workers from all over the world and bringing them to Houston for orientation, background checks, training and deployment.

They are being sent primarily to Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.

KBR's Web site last week listed 60 job openings in Iraq, 90 in Kuwait and 50 in Afghanistan.

But the recruitment operation is being kept under tight wraps, apparently due to continuing political controversy over Halliburton's role in the lucrative post-war work.

:: DM1 10/16/2003 10:38:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Monday, October 13, 2003 ::

Damn Liberal Media

The Liberal Media is at it again only reporting the bad news and not the "good news". I am reading the headline on page one of one of these liberal rags. The headline says "Baghad bomber kills six". Nowhere in the article does it report the "good news". Uh, oh. Hold on this is from today's Washington Times, a stauchly conservative paper. I guess they haven't received the Bush talking points yet. Never mind.

:: DM1 10/13/2003 05:15:00 PM [+] ::
...

My President He Wrote Me a Letter

There's a rumor going around that a copy of a letter being sent home by some soldiers is a duplicate that extols the "good news" in Iraq. Now the letter supposedly highlights many of the talking points used by the Bush Administration. Now a cynical person might think that this letter was drafted by someone other than these soldiers and it makes one wonder if things are going so well, why is there a need for someone to draft a "good news" letter for soldiers to sign and send home?

:: DM1 10/13/2003 05:11:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, October 12, 2003 ::

Blast from the Past October 2003

Memo to Sheep:

Why is Bush and his boys trying to tell us how great Iraq is? They just don't get it that while American soldiers are being killed, maimed (see the wounded at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.), and wounded, most Americans don't want to hear about Iraqis getting jobs, building schools, and upgrading their electrical grid. Saddam is gone and there are no weapons of mass destruction. Weren't those the two primary objectives of the war.

Well, until Bush and his useful idiots realized that the intelligence on Iraq was not promising. So they started stretching intelligence and came up with the goal of bringing democracy to Iraq. Talk about "mission creep". Enough already, understand that the Iraqis who are fighting us, will continue to fight us as long as we are in Iraq. They were born and raised in Iraq, they are going nowhere. They have all the time in the world to continue to kill, maim, and wound American soldiers.

So please spare me the "good news about Iraq". Tell me the good news when they stop killing our young soldiers!

:: DM1 10/12/2003 01:48:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to the Dittoheads:

So, the "Great One" is a junkie. Hey, don't get mad at me. Ken Hamlin, known as the conservative "Black Avenger", called Rush a junkie. What do you do now? Think for yourselves? Why not try it. Rush led you down a path that you bought hook, line, and sinker. I hear a lot of you now talking about having compassion for Rush and his illness. For a young black man with the same problem, you label him a menace to society, a criminal, and a degenerate. So, are you going to be consistent, or are you going to prove what black folks have known all along? That when it comes to black folk many white folks always think that get they deserve everything they get. They're poor, jobless, uneducated, "loose", welfare dependent, and any other negative thing that you can think of. Rush on the other hand lives in a $24 million mansion and is heard daily by millions of listeners. He is adored and worshiped by the conservative movement.

So what's Rush's excuse? Back pain? Why didn't he go to his doctor if it was his back? Between Rush and the poor, black so and so with no hope and no future, who is really in pain. Who really deserves compassion and understanding? You're right, Rush! And that's why there will not be any real rapproachment between the races. You really believe that Rush is different and should be treated differently.

Rush with all his money and fame is no better than that poor, black wretch that you all disparage daily. Let's see if he is subject to the same laws as those poor, black wretches. I doubt it. I hope that the "rule of law" will prevail, especially since if true, Rush was guilty of multiple felonies over an extended period of time. Now is the time for you sheep to reevaluate your slavish behavior to these phony right wing talk show hosts. Listen, everybody is dirty in his or her own way. Acting as if you are morally superior to the rest of us is getting to be tiresome. It's time for you to practice not what Rush preaches, but what Jesus preaches. You like to refer to yourselves as Christians. Well now you can start acting like "true" Christians. You can minister to Rush and pray for him, but when you are finished go and help that miserable, poor, black wretch.

:: DM1 10/12/2003 01:31:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, October 04, 2003 ::

Memo to Sheep:

Ah, but are the chickens coming home. Eight years of moralizing to the rest of us and you all have glass houses with many broken windows. Limbaugh, Arnold, Senior White Aides, all are into some kind of tawdry behavior. And still you support them. Bill Clinton was crucified daily. He was accused of murder, rape, drug running, embezzlement, and various other felonies. The only charge that could be proved was that Clinton lied under oath about oral sex and he was impeached. When judging Limbaugh, Arnold, and the White House you owe it to the rest of us to use the same standards of judgement that you used for Bill Clinton. If you can't bring yourselves to do so then do the rest of us a favor; "Shut up!" You are no better than anyone else and as you can see everybody falls short. One thing for sure is that Bill Clinton's Presidency does not look as bad as it once did. That folks could focus only on his crotch is evidence that he must have been doing something right. Whether it was the economy or the world, Clinton tried to lift all boats. He wasn't perfect, but as we see now neither were those who attacked him so viciously on a daily basis.

:: DM1 10/04/2003 01:59:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, October 03, 2003 ::

:: DM1 10/03/2003 10:06:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Karen Hunter of The New York Daily News:

(Ms. Hunter wrote a column on the Rush Limbaugh/ESPN Controversy)

Basically, Ms. Hunter hits it on the head. Limbaugh should not have resigned and should have had a chance to follow up on his statements on ESPN. That, his fellow commentator on ESPN's Countdown, Tom Jackson allegedly threatened to quite if Limbaugh was not fired says much more. Usually when white conservatives or white folks in general speak about the black community, it' is in the negative (affirmative action, out of wedlock births, crime, education, etc.). Black sports fans look to sports as a release from the everyday madness. Tom Jackson is no different. That's why his show is a sports show. That doesn't mean that hard issues are not discussed (the hiring of black coaches, bad behavior by black athletes, etc.). However, it was probably not lost on Tom Jackson that Limbaugh is a radio talk show host that usually discusses black America in negative terms. If Jackson takes on Limbaugh, the confrontation could lead to a lot of racial animosity at ESPN and in the country at large. If Jackson doesn't take on Limbaugh, he's a "sell out" and an "Uncle Tom". In other words for Jackson, it's a no win situation. At some point, black folk just want some relief from the everyday reality of growing up black in America. Hence, sports and the shows that lead off the games on Sunday are used by many black sports fans as an oasis against the storm.

Also, following up on one of Ms. Hunter's other points, whatever happened to the millions of white folks who did everything they could to suppress the freedoms of blacks up through the passage of the Civil Rights Laws of the mid-1960's. Did they renounce their beliefs or did they choose other methods of maintaining and perpetuating their long held views? Maybe some of them chose to be talk show hosts.

:: DM1 10/03/2003 10:01:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Thursday, October 02, 2003 ::

Memo to Fred Barnes:

My response to comments made in support of Rush Limbaugh by Barnes on Special Report on Fox News 10/2/03:

Once again you have it wrong and your comments are wholly ridiculous. There are millions of people in jail right now, especially young black males for buying illegal drugs and using illegal drugs. You call Rush Limbaugh's alleged offenses (he engaged in illegal drug activities on numerous occasions) "minor, minor" offenses. Either you believe that Rush Limbaugh should not be held to the same standard that a young black man is held to. Why is that? Why should not a rich, white, successful, republican, conservative be held to the same standard? Do you have one standard for young black men and another for rich, white, republican, conservative men? From your comments, it is obvious that you do. And that my friend is "RACIST"!

:: DM1 10/02/2003 07:11:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 ::

Memo to Sheep:

From Terrence Hunt of the Associated Press. The last paragraph of his article today:

The focus on Rove brought an odd twist to Bush's travels. When the president boarded Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, he walked up the steps and waved - and not a single camera followed. He looked momentarily perplexed. All lenses were trained on Rove at the bottom of the steps.

Fasten your seat belts because we are in for a hell of a ride!

:: DM1 9/30/2003 07:16:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

Well, well, well. Take a look at Buzzflash.Com. Looks like Karl "I didn't snitch!" Rove may be in a little hot water. Next to this truly corrupt and illegimate charade of a president, Bill Clinton is a candidate for Mount Rushmore. Bill Clinton's legacy was never in doubt because I knew I could count on a rich, underachieving frat boy who owes everthing he has to his daddy and his daddy's friends. Bush is a failure and has been one his entire life. That he was able to steal the Presidency and be elected Governor of Texas says a lot about the fraudulent nature of conservatives. Well, Bush's daddy can't help him now. This is the same George Bush that was a knucklehead at Yale and Harvard. The "uncurious" president. A President of the United States is "uncurious" and only listens to the opinion's of his henchmen. Well get ready for the shedding of more blood and money in the insane quest to remake Iraq. Over 1800 casualties to date in Iraq with more than 300 dead. The holiday season is right around the corner, why don't some of you sheep visit Walter Reed Hospital in Washington D.C. Say hello to some of the wounded who are back from Iraq. Try not to wave because the soldier that you wave to may not have two attached arms and hands to wave back. Also, go for walks with some of the wounded though you should get your arms in shape because pushing their wheelchairs will be difficult. Well what do you expect because they have no legs with which to walk. Merry Christmas!

:: DM1 9/30/2003 07:08:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, September 27, 2003 ::

:: DM1 9/27/2003 08:45:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

Now the Bush administration is telling you that the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier that Bush landed on was not referring to Iraq, but the accomplishment of the aircraft carrier and its crew.
What? Here's an excerpt from a report by M. L. Lyke in the Seattle Port Dispatch dated May 2, 2003:

At 6 p.m., the crew of 5,300 stood at attention, arms stiff, shoulders held back, hands fisted, as the president began his expected war-is-over speech. A banner strung behind his head proclaimed: "Missions accomplished."

In suit and tie, he told the Lincoln's crew that the conflict had ended, that, because of them, the nation was more secure, the tyrant had fallen and Iraq was free. His speech was interrupted constantly with applause and cheers. But it was his comments about the ship heading home that drew the most sustained whoops and clapping.

How pathetic is the Bush Administration? Now that things are not going as well as they expected, they want us to believe that the banner on the aircraft carrier did not pertain to the Iraq War. Yeah, right!

:: DM1 9/27/2003 08:43:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, September 21, 2003 ::

Memo to Sheep:

The Bush Administration continues to screw things up. I am tired of pointing out all of the failures. How about getting back to basics. Here are some suggestions:

1) Stop lying
2) Stop being arrogant
3) Stop being lazy (Over 250 vacation days since January 2001)
4) Read (An ignorant president is not helpful)
5) End the Iraq occupation (Let the Iraqis govern themselves. Of course there may be a civil war, but instead of killing our soldiers let the Iraqis fight it out. We can back one side or the other with weapons. That's usually how we do it!)
6) Fire Dickie C. Donnie R, Woofie, and Karl "The King Maker" Rove.
7) Stop aligning yourself with the Tom "Where's the Money" Delays of the world.
8) Stop using God to justify your actions.
9) Rollback some of the tax cuts. Some were necessary, but you got greedy. Also, remember the Government needs money to run. Instead of bleeding the country dry, moderate spending (which can be done!).
10) Annouce that you will not seek a second term. Enough already!

:: DM1 9/21/2003 10:06:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 ::

Memo to Bush Supporters:

Had enough, yet? What is this "death by a thousand cuts"? Face it, Bush is a "miserable failure". Understand that Iraq has cost us about $79 million to date. If Bush gets his $87 billion, the bill rises to $166 billion. And this is only the first six months of combat. An estimated $100 billion is needed to rebuild Iraq so you know that the true amount is much higher. The military has killed so many "innocent" civilians that most Iraqies want them dead or gone. You've got thousands of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 armed to the teeth and scared to death of being ambushed. What happens is that these young people start to error on the side extreme caution and don't hesitate to shoot anyone who even appears to be a threat. The result is 1,500 U.S. casualties and rising. Some reports have casualties running as high as 1700 to 2000. The breakdown is 300 killed and 1200 to 1700 wounded. The ball is in your court . Now what are you prepared to do?

Da' Militant 1

:: DM1 9/16/2003 11:57:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Sunday, August 31, 2003 ::

Memo to Fox News:

Gentlemen,

As a republican for 17 years, I am more and more amused at the lengths that some republicans will go to win a point. Today, you had a clip of Senator Clinton (and I will give her the respect due) talking about the EPA's Inspector General report. She was speaking about the alleged misrepresentation by the EPA on the air quality at Ground Zero in the months after the WTC terrorist attacks. Interspersed with her comments were those of a republican strategist. What is that all about? I have never seen you do that with President Bush, or anybody else. Now I don't watch your station that often because I know what a "conservative slant" is and the Fox News Channel provides it. However, if the news is about Senator Clinton's comments, why the unnecessary commentary by a republican partisan? It doesn't strike me as fair and balanced, if you don't accord President Bush and other republicans the same treatment.

I like to think that the core republican philosophy is enough to persuade the public at large. Mind you not the type of republicanism that is practiced today, but the more economically and more importantly socially conscience republicans of the 1950s and early 1960s. What I see now is a bunch of bitter and intolerant individuals who seem out of touch with the America that I have come to know. I know that we can do better. I don't need Tom Delay trying to engineer a gerrymandering scam in Texas. I don't need Darryl Issa fomenting a republican purge of a democratic governor. I particularly don't need the partisans like Hannity and Limbaugh that demagogue. I have faith that principled individuals like Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and John McCain will force the far right wing of the party to moderate some of their legislation. I look forward to the day when President Bush and his minions are in retirement. The Republican Party can do better and it must do better.

Da' Militant 1

:: DM1 8/31/2003 01:53:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Bill O'Reilly:

Bill O'Reilly got the Fox Network to sue Al Franken, a former writer for Saturday Night Live and noted liberal activist, for using
Fox's trademark "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his latest book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right". The case was thrown out by the presiding judge and was determined to be "wholly without merit". Here is the text of my email to "Irish" Bill:

Irish Bill,

What is wrong with you? You are quick to denigrate and condemn those that do not agree with you, but a lawsuit against Al Franken? You can do better. You talk a lot about frivolous lawsuits. Well Fox's lawsuit against Franken was as frivolous as you can get. Why don't you show that you are a stand up guy and pay his legal bills connected with the suit. If you want any credibility on the subject of frivolous lawsuits then you will square "Liberal Al" away. If it was just talk then you are just another windbag with situational ethics. Just a thought.

Da' Militant 1

:: DM1 8/31/2003 01:51:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Tim Russert:

John Kerry was on Meet The Press on 8/31/03. Russert asked Kerry about a statement he made about George Bush in the recent past. Kerry essentially said that Bush (who was two years behind Kerry at Yale) was the same person today as he was at Yale. Russert asked him what he meant and Kerry wouldn't respond specifically to the question. Here is the text of my email to Russert:

Timmy,

John Kerry is too much of a gentleman to say what he felt about George Bush. What he meant by saying that Bush was the same person today as he was at Yale is that Bush is an "amiable dunce". Of course Bush is a likable fellow. How do you think he's managed all of these years. Just goes to show you how far a big name and big money can take you! Why don't you invite Bush on and question him? He deserves to have his feet put to the fire, though I have my doubts that you could, or would ask the really tough questions. Maybe you could start with the 90 page report he recieved on Iraq's WMD BEFORE the war. Ask him why didn't he read the footnotes at the end of the document that noted a split in the various agencies on the veracity of the Niger/Uranium claim? Ask him how could he as President, ready to send thousands of young people to war and hundreds to their deaths, not have read the report in its entirety? Didn't he owe it to the Nation and its soldiers to be fully informed? Didn't he have an obligation to act intelligently and responsibly? Anyway, John Kerry was dead on the money about Bush and we are all now dealing with his lack of intelligence and basic knowledge of the world and its history.

Da' Militant 1

:: DM1 8/31/2003 01:45:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, August 15, 2003 ::

Memo to America:

A taste of Ashcroft justice "For His Family":

From Salon:

Ashcroft's nephew got probation after major pot bust
Although his arrest for growing 60 plants could have landed him in federal prison, Alex Ashcroft was tried in state court and avoided jail -- despite his uncle's crusade for tougher federal drug laws and mandatory prison sentences

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Daniel Forbes

Jan. 12, 2001 | The nephew of Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft received probation after a felony conviction in state court for growing 60 marijuana plants with intent to distribute the drug in 1992 -- a lenient sentence, given that the charges against him often trigger much tougher federal penalties and jail time. Ashcroft was the tough-on-drugs Missouri governor at the time.

Alex Ashcroft, then 25, and his brother Adam, 19, were arrested and charged with production and possession of marijuana after police raided their home in January, 1992. A housemate, Kevin Sheely, then 24, was also arrested. Officials said approximately 60 marijuana plants were found growing in a basement crawl space, and a lighting, irrigation and security system was also discovered.

Although growing more than 50 plants often triggers federal prosecution, and results in jail time -- thanks to federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws Ashcroft fought to toughen as senator -- Alex Ashcroft was prosecuted on a state charge and received probation. His brother Adam did not live in the house and was never prosecuted. END

There's more, but I think you get the gist of it! Should I go on? But I must! There will be no relief for you until the "fraud" and his henchmen are vanquished!

:: DM1 8/15/2003 10:52:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Sheep:

How are you doing? I know it's been rough cleaning up Bush's mess, but just remember, you voted for him! A lot of soldiers are being wounded and killed, but just remember, you voted for him! Osama and Saddam are chillin', not like Uday and Qusay. but just remember you voted for him! Come to think of it what is happening to the country in a lot of ways is your responsibility because you voted for the "Un-elected Fraud". Hurts doesn't it, to know that he really is an idiot and an "average american". This is why we try to vote for Americans who have an above average intellect because they need to be able to discern, comprehend, think on their feet and build consensus among other traits. Bush has been on vacation the better part of 250 days. He's yet to be in office three years! Such is the life of the "average american"!

:: DM1 8/15/2003 10:38:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Conservative Republicans:

Here's more on the failure of Bush to address the upgrading of the energy grid. This article was on the Nema Publications web site and was dated February 2001:

NEMA Urges Bush Energy Team to Promote Stable Power Grid

In response to a request by the Bush transition team, NEMA has submitted a white paper urging the Administration to enact "rules and incentives to maintain adequate supplies of power at the lowest possible cost, and for maintaining electrical system reliability."

In the transmission white paper, NEMA notes that the development of competitive power markets, coupled with the emergence of retail markets, has resulted in significant new uses of the interstate transmission grid. The grid has thus been subjected to flows of energy about which little is known, created transmission bottlenecks, and increased reliability problems. Experts believe that additional investment will be required to expand transmission capacity.

That investment may be difficult to come by, however. The association’s white paper points out that uncertainties surrounding financing, facility-siting, post-deregulation ownership, and policies governing the transition to regional transmission organizations, are making utilities reluctant to invest in new transmission facilities.

It also notes that the permitting process for the construction of new transmission facilities or expansion of existing ones is becoming ever more problematic. In the past, for instance, transmission lines were built primarily to meet state requirements to serve a utility’s "native loads." Today, new transmission facilities in most locations are no longer likely to exist primarily to benefit a utility’s customers or a regulator’s constituents, but for other purposes like the support of regional, multi-state, power markets.

NEMA thus contends that, "state commissions and local authorities are less likely to authorize the development and construction of new transmission facilities. This raises the question of a larger role for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in jurisdiction over transmission facilities."

The North American Electric Reliability Council has estimated that annual investments in new transmission facilities have been declining by about $100 million a year for the past two decades. While that precipitous drop was taking place, load growth was moving in the opposite direction. EPRI has estimated that in the ten years ending in 1999, electricity demand in the U.S. rose by approximately 30 percent, while additional transmission capacity grew by just 15 percent. The trend continued to ramp up in 2000, above the ten-year trend, due to weather extremes and the increased use of computer data centers. The diverging trend lines strongly suggest that an immediate, powerful remedy is badly needed.

To insure that increased consumer demand is met and at the lowest possible cost, NEMA recommends a series of measures that combined will (1) increase the reliability of the grid; (2) facilitate the expansion and upgrade of existing transmission facilities and promote the role of technology in achieving this objective; and (3) encourage increased investment in new facilities and technologies.

Specifically, the NEMA position statement delivered to the Bush transition team says NEMA supports "policies that create enforceable and mandatory reliability standards to ensure that the interstate transmission grid is not operated in a manner that adversely affects system reliability. To protect consumers, NEMA urges Congress and the Administration to act quickly to enact the NERC consensus language on electric reliability—either as a stand-alone bill that provides a first step towards improving reliability, or as part of comprehensive electric restructuring legislation."

NERC developed language included in major electric restructuring bills introduced in the House and Senate in the 106th Congress. S.207 was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, but neither bill passed both houses. The NERC language, providing a framework for the development and enforcement of mandatory reliability standards, was endorsed by virtually all segments of the electric utility industry.

NEMA’s white paper recommends further that the foundation of any new transmission policy should rest upon the creation of a regulatory structure that:

Promotes the use of technology to protect and enhance the integrity and reliability of the existing interstate transmission grid in the near term;
Removes siting and permitting impediments that currently serve as a barrier to the construction of new facilities;
Ensures, through use of rate incentives and other similar market measures, that investments in new transmission facilities will be recovered and a competitive return for the investment made;
Provides authority to states to allow them to enter into regional compacts to address siting issues; and
Provides FERC with the authority to require utilities to enlarge, extend, or improve transmission facilities upon application and after referring the matter to a joint federal-state board.
Finally, NEMA recommends that Congress make sure that the Department of Energy’s Transmission Reliability program is adequately funded and its programs applied "in a manner that complements and encourages industry’s own efforts."

NEMA Vice President for Government Affairs Tim Feldman, the association’s representative to the transition team, said NEMA’s position was hammered out in full consultation with representatives of the organization’s policy committees. "We’re comfortable," he said, "that if our strategies are implemented, the difficult transition we are experiencing in California and other parts of the country can be smoothed, that consumers will benefit, and that power reliability will be assured at a reasonable cost."END

There you have it! More than two years ago, Bush was warned about the power grid and the need for upgrades. What did he do? Well judging from yesterday, not enough!

Da' Militant 1

:: DM1 8/15/2003 10:25:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Republican Conservatives:

I've been away for a while because you are bordering on insane. Did I hear Sean "Weasel" Hannity blame the blackout on Bill Clinton today? Is this your defense of Bush's and the Republican Congress' lack of action. Didn't Dick "D-Money" Cheney hold an energy meeting with his gang to divide the energy spoils. Shouldn't that meeting have focused on the aging energy infrastructure? Obviously, it didn't. So what did they meet about and why was their strategy a failure. This of course assumes that they even gave a damn about the poor saps in Ohio, Michigan, and New York. Let's go to the video tape:

From Joe Conason in today's Salon:

The president's response to the blackout was predictable: Use the occasion to promote the interests of his supporters in the oil and electricity industries -- and to proclaim that he has been on top of this decades-old problem all along. According to the New York Times, the White House plans to use the blackout to promote its energy bill, written by corporate lobbyists and the vice president (but I repeat myself).

"Of course, we'll have time to look at it and determine whether or not our grid needs to be modernized," Bush told reporters. "I happen to think it does, and have said so all along."

Whatever he has been saying all along, his administration and its comrades on Capitol Hill haven't done much to address the decay of the grid -- an issue not easily solved by deregulation. David Sirota, former communications director for the minority on the House Appropriations Committee, sent around a note today pointing out that in June 2001, the White House and Congressional Republicans voted down a proposal to provide $350 million in federally backed loans for reconstruction and modernization of the grid. Its sponsor was Sam Farr, a California Democrat who commented at the time, rather prophetically, "without timely intervention from the federal government, the crisis is likely to spread to other states." END

Do you notice that it was Bush and the Republican Congress who came out against modernizing the grid. For a measly $350 million the grid could have started to undergo some modernization. Where did the money go? Can you say "tax cut" ? So there you have it "Weasel". You and the rest of your cult have the real story and still you blame Clinton. I'm being to think that you wish that you could trade places with Monica. I have never seen so much anger. It's almost like a lover scorn. Clinton pays attention to everyone, but you. You goad him and goad him and still he pays you no mind while he's making millions of dollars. It just riles your asses. Well not to worry. I doubt that most of you will be around much longer. The lies that you have had to spread and defend are becoming much to numerous. Even poor Dr. "I hate my mother" Laura is converting back to Christianity. Talk about sowing what you reap! I really hope that you choke on the truth because after today that is all that is on the menu!

Da' militant 1

:: DM1 8/15/2003 09:53:00 PM [+] ::
...

:: Saturday, July 26, 2003 ::

Memo to Republicans:

It feels like the wheels are coming off of the bus. doesn't it? You hitched your wagon to Bush and Cheney and now here you are. Let's hope we find Osama. Let's hope we find Saddam. Where are those WMDs? How about this economy? What is the answer? War and tax cuts. As you can see the combination can be devastating. Deficits where there were surpluses. Well, I've just pulled out my lucky rabbit's foot. Let's all close our eyes and hope!

:: DM1 7/26/2003 01:57:00 AM [+] ::
...

:: Friday, July 25, 2003 ::

Memo to Conservatives:

You are sounding more Clintonian as the days go by. Any intelligent critical thinking person knows that the B